RTX A2000 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q with RTX A2000, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1650 Max-Q
2019
4 GB GDDR5, 30 Watt
16.04

RTX A2000 outperforms GTX 1650 Max-Q by a whopping 122% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking336139
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data85.99
Power efficiency36.6534.81
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameTU117GA106
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)10 August 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$449

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 cores10243328
Core clock speed930 MHz562 MHz
Boost clock speed1125 MHz1200 MHz
Number of transistors4,700 million12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate72.00124.8
Floating-point processing power2.304 TFLOPS7.987 TFLOPS
ROPs3248
TMUs64104
Tensor Coresno data104
Ray Tracing Coresno data26

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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data167 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1751 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth112.1 GB/s288.0 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 outputs4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1401.3
CUDA7.58.6

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 16.04
RTX A2000 35.54
+122%

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 6180
RTX A2000 13695
+122%

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 11083
RTX A2000 19978
+80.3%

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 30957
RTX A2000 76281
+146%

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 7779
RTX A2000 14934
+92%

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 45244
RTX A2000 94407
+109%

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 373879
RTX A2000 561627
+50.2%

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 HD57
−64.9%
94
+64.9%
1440p30
−46.7%
44
+46.7%
4K15
−86.7%
28
+86.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.78
1440pno data10.20
4Kno data16.04

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−120%
55−60
+120%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 49
−104%
100−105
+104%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−112%
55−60
+112%
Battlefield 5 63
−106%
130−140
+106%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 42
−114%
90−95
+114%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−120%
55−60
+120%
Far Cry 5 48
−108%
100−105
+108%
Far Cry New Dawn 59
−120%
130−140
+120%
Forza Horizon 4 195
−105%
400−450
+105%
Hitman 3 30−35
−110%
65−70
+110%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−113%
170−180
+113%
Metro Exodus 71
−111%
150−160
+111%
Red Dead Redemption 2 54
−104%
110−120
+104%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−112%
110−120
+112%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−110%
170−180
+110%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 69
−117%
150−160
+117%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−112%
55−60
+112%
Battlefield 5 55
−118%
120−130
+118%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40
−113%
85−90
+113%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−120%
55−60
+120%
Far Cry 5 38
−111%
80−85
+111%
Far Cry New Dawn 41
−120%
90−95
+120%
Forza Horizon 4 179
−95.5%
350−400
+95.5%
Hitman 3 30−35
−110%
65−70
+110%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−113%
170−180
+113%
Metro Exodus 58
−107%
120−130
+107%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45
−111%
95−100
+111%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−112%
110−120
+112%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
−111%
80−85
+111%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−110%
170−180
+110%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20
−100%
40−45
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−112%
55−60
+112%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 25
−120%
55−60
+120%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−120%
55−60
+120%
Far Cry 5 26
−112%
55−60
+112%
Forza Horizon 4 55
−118%
120−130
+118%
Hitman 3 30−35
−110%
65−70
+110%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−113%
170−180
+113%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−112%
110−120
+112%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
−117%
65−70
+117%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−110%
170−180
+110%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 42
−114%
90−95
+114%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 33
−112%
70−75
+112%
Far Cry New Dawn 26
−112%
55−60
+112%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 17
−106%
35−40
+106%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−108%
27−30
+108%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
−106%
35−40
+106%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−100%
18−20
+100%
Far Cry 5 19
−111%
40−45
+111%
Forza Horizon 4 124
−118%
270−280
+118%
Hitman 3 18−20
−111%
40−45
+111%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−112%
70−75
+112%
Metro Exodus 32
−119%
70−75
+119%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
−117%
65−70
+117%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−106%
35−40
+106%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
−114%
210−220
+114%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−112%
55−60
+112%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 11
−118%
24−27
+118%
Far Cry New Dawn 13
−108%
27−30
+108%
Hitman 3 12−14
−100%
24−27
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−110%
170−180
+110%
Metro Exodus 22
−105%
45−50
+105%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
−94.4%
35−40
+94.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8
−100%
16−18
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Far Cry 5 9
−100%
18−20
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−105%
45−50
+105%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−119%
35−40
+119%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 13
−108%
27−30
+108%

This is how GTX 1650 Max-Q and RTX A2000 compete in popular games:

  • RTX A2000 is 65% faster in 1080p
  • RTX A2000 is 47% faster in 1440p
  • RTX A2000 is 87% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.04 35.54
Recency 23 April 2019 10 August 2021
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 70 Watt

GTX 1650 Max-Q has 133.3% lower power consumption.

RTX A2000, on the other hand, has a 121.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 50% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is a notebook card while RTX A2000 is a workstation 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 GTX 1650 Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
NVIDIA RTX A2000
RTX A2000

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.


3.9 620 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 578 votes

Rate RTX A2000 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.