GeForce GTX 1650 vs GT 330M

Place in the ranking	1207	264
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	39.45
Power efficiency	1.69	18.84
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GT216	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	10 January 2010 (14 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	48	896
Core clock speed	625 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	10.00	93.24
Floating-point processing power	0.06528 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	182	no data
ROPs	8	32
TMUs	16	56

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None
SLI options	+	-

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.28 GB/s	128.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management

8.0

no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.5
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 330M 0.56

GTX 1650 20.40
+3543%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GT 330M 216

GTX 1650 7873
+3545%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GT 330M 2658

GTX 1650 44694
+1582%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p	10 −3400%	350−400 +3400%
Full HD	17 −294%	67 +294%
1440p	1−2 −3600%	37 +3600%
4K	0−1	24

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.22
1440p	no data	4.03
4K	no data	6.21

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−967%

30−35
+967%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −1225%	53 +1225%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −1633%	52 +1633%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −967%	30−35 +967%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −7900%	80 +7900%
Hitman 3	5−6 −880%	49 +880%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −2555%	292 +2555%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −1817%	115 +1817%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −647%	224 +647%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −1975%	83 +1975%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −1433%	46 +1433%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −967%	30−35 +967%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −5500%	56 +5500%
Hitman 3	5−6 −840%	47 +840%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −2264%	260 +2264%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −1133%	74 +1133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −360%	45−50 +360%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −587%	206 +587%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −525%	25 +525%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −167%	8 +167%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −967%	30−35 +967%
Hitman 3	5−6 −720%	41 +720%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −445%	60 +445%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −933%	62 +933%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −320%	42 +320%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +42.9%	21 −42.9%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−3500%

36
+3500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	18
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −2300%	24 +2300%
Hitman 3	6−7 −350%	27 +350%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −1333%	43 +1333%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −14400%	145 +14400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−1067%

35
+1067%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −1200%	13 +1200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	5

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−750%

17
+750%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	47 +0%	47 +0%
Battlefield 5	79 +0%	79 +0%
Far Cry 5	64 +0%	64 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	229 +0%	229 +0%
Metro Exodus	101 +0%	101 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	77 +0%	77 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35 +0%	35 +0%
Battlefield 5	72 +0%	72 +0%
Far Cry 5	52 +0%	52 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	201 +0%	201 +0%
Metro Exodus	71 +0%	71 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55 +0%	55 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +0%	13 +0%
Far Cry 5	39 +0%	39 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65 +0%	65 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +0%	13 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	122 +0%	122 +0%
Metro Exodus	41 +0%	41 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45 +0%	45 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	20 +0%	20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	17 +0%	17 +0%
Hitman 3	13 +0%	13 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	41 +0%	41 +0%
Metro Exodus	27 +0%	27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	26 +0%	26 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	12 +0%	12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +0%	30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	26 +0%	26 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8 +0%	8 +0%

This is how GT 330M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 3400% faster in 900p
GTX 1650 is 294% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 3600% faster in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 330M is 43% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 is 14400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 330M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
GTX 1650 is ahead in 34 tests (49%)
there's a draw in 35 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.56	20.40
Recency	10 January 2010	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	75 Watt

GT 330M has 226.1% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 3542.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 330M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 330M is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.