GeForce GTX 1650 vs GT 720M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 720M with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.

GT 720M
2013
2 GB DDR3, 33 Watt
1.19

GTX 1650 outperforms GT 720M by a whopping 1617% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1057269
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data38.84
Power efficiency2.4718.67
ArchitectureKepler 2.0 (2013−2015)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGK208TU117
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date25 December 2013 (10 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 cores192896
Core clock speed719 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speed758 MHz1665 MHz
Number of transistors915 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate12.1393.24
Floating-point processing power0.2911 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs1656

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Standard memory configurationDDR3no data
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
eDP 1.2 signal supportUp to 2560x1600no data
LVDS signal supportUp to 1920x1200no data
VGA аnalog display supportUp to 2048x1536no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportUp to 2560x1600no data
HDMI++
HDCP content protection+-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI+-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming+-

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.11.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
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 720M 1.19
GTX 1650 20.43
+1617%

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 720M 459
GTX 1650 7874
+1615%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GT 720M 1213
GTX 1650 13645
+1025%

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 720M 4585
GTX 1650 44694
+875%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GT 720M 822
GTX 1650 9203
+1020%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GT 720M 5426
GTX 1650 50549
+832%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GT 720M 2610
GTX 1650 39171
+1401%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GT 720M 59694
GTX 1650 373333
+525%

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:

Full HD13
−431%
69
+431%
1440p2−3
−1850%
39
+1850%
4K1−2
−2100%
22
+2100%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.16
1440pno data3.82
4Kno data6.77

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 5−6
−960%
53
+960%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−1200%
52
+1200%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−967%
30−35
+967%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−6300%
64
+6300%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−2567%
80
+2567%
Forza Horizon 4 30
−663%
229
+663%
Hitman 3 6−7
−717%
49
+717%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−1986%
292
+1986%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−3750%
77
+3750%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−1338%
115
+1338%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−600%
224
+600%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−1560%
83
+1560%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−1050%
46
+1050%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−967%
30−35
+967%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−5100%
52
+5100%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−1767%
56
+1767%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−20000%
201
+20000%
Hitman 3 6−7
−683%
47
+683%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−1757%
260
+1757%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2650%
55
+2650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−825%
74
+825%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
−188%
45−50
+188%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−544%
206
+544%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−400%
25
+400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−100%
8
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−967%
30−35
+967%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−3800%
39
+3800%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−6400%
65
+6400%
Hitman 3 6−7
−583%
41
+583%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−329%
60
+329%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−675%
62
+675%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−282%
42
+282%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+52.4%
21
−52.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2600%
54
+2600%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−4100%
42
+4100%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−1700%
36
+1700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−1700%
18
+1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 21−24
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2300%
24
+2300%
Hitman 3 7−8
−286%
27
+286%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−975%
43
+975%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 24−27
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−2800%
145
+2800%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−775%
35
+775%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 17

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−1200%
13
+1200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−400%
5
+400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 10−12
Far Cry 5 0−1 12

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%
Metro Exodus 101
+0%
101
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35
+0%
35
+0%
Battlefield 5 72
+0%
72
+0%
Metro Exodus 71
+0%
71
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 122
+0%
122
+0%
Metro Exodus 41
+0%
41
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45
+0%
45
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 20
+0%
20
+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

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+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 720M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 431% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 1850% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 2100% faster in 4K

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 720M is 52% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 20000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 720M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • GTX 1650 is ahead in 46 tests (69%)
  • there's a draw in 20 tests (30%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.19 20.43
Recency 25 December 2013 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 75 Watt

GT 720M has 127.3% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 1616.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 720M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 720M 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M
GeForce GT 720M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 967 votes

Rate GeForce GT 720M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 23772 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.