Radeon 780M vs GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q and Radeon 780M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q
2020
4 GB GDDR6, 50 Watt
14.47

780M outperforms GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking342319
Place by popularitynot in top-10065
Power efficiency22.9683.02
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025)
GPU code nameTU117Hawx Point
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date2 April 2020 (4 years ago)6 December 2023 (1 year ago)

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 cores1024768
Core clock speed1035 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speed1200 MHz2700 MHz
Number of transistors4,700 million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate76.80129.6
Floating-point processing power2.458 TFLOPS8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs6448
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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 x8
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 typeGDDR6System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1250 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/sno data
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 outputsPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK 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
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan1.2.1401.3
CUDA7.5-

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.

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 14.47
Radeon 780M 15.70
+8.5%

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 Ti Max-Q 6468
Radeon 780M 7015
+8.5%

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 Ti Max-Q 11538
Radeon 780M 12785
+10.8%

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 Ti Max-Q 31116
Radeon 780M 41622
+33.8%

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 Ti Max-Q 8564
+7.2%
Radeon 780M 7987

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 Ti Max-Q 47657
Radeon 780M 48112
+1%

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 Ti Max-Q 421834
Radeon 780M 429810
+1.9%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 3098
+9.8%
Radeon 780M 2822

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 HD54
+50%
36
−50%
1440p33
+50%
22
−50%
4K24
+84.6%
13
−84.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 40−45
−19.5%
49
+19.5%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
−33.7%
119
+33.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−18.2%
39
+18.2%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 40−45
+5.1%
39
−5.1%
Battlefield 5 65−70
−7.5%
70−75
+7.5%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+8.5%
82
−8.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+6.5%
31
−6.5%
Far Cry 5 56
+24.4%
45
−24.4%
Fortnite 85−90
−6.9%
90−95
+6.9%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−7.7%
70−75
+7.7%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
−30%
65
+30%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
−10.3%
60−65
+10.3%
Valorant 120−130
−5.6%
130−140
+5.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 40−45
+78.3%
23
−78.3%
Battlefield 5 65−70
−7.5%
70−75
+7.5%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+128%
39
−128%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
−5.4%
210−220
+5.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+37.5%
24
−37.5%
Dota 2 112
+9.8%
100−110
−9.8%
Far Cry 5 51
+24.4%
41
−24.4%
Fortnite 85−90
−6.9%
90−95
+6.9%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−7.7%
70−75
+7.7%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
−20%
60
+20%
Grand Theft Auto V 67
+52.3%
44
−52.3%
Metro Exodus 31
+6.9%
29
−6.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
−10.3%
60−65
+10.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 54
+17.4%
46
−17.4%
Valorant 120−130
−5.6%
130−140
+5.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
−7.5%
70−75
+7.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+43.5%
23
−43.5%
Dota 2 106
+3.9%
100−110
−3.9%
Far Cry 5 48
+23.1%
39
−23.1%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−7.7%
70−75
+7.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
−10.3%
60−65
+10.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 32
+10.3%
29
−10.3%
Valorant 120−130
−5.6%
130−140
+5.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 85−90
−6.9%
90−95
+6.9%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+14.8%
27
−14.8%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
−7.8%
120−130
+7.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 26
+44.4%
18
−44.4%
Metro Exodus 20−22
−10%
21−24
+10%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
−6.6%
160−170
+6.6%
Valorant 150−160
−5.7%
160−170
+5.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
−9.1%
45−50
+9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−14.3%
16
+14.3%
Far Cry 5 33
+22.2%
27
−22.2%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−10.3%
40−45
+10.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+30%
20
−30%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40
−11.4%
35−40
+11.4%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+100%
6
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 25
+19%
21
−19%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+33.3%
15
−33.3%
Valorant 85−90
−10.3%
95−100
+10.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
−8.7%
24−27
+8.7%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6
+0%
Dota 2 52
−15.4%
60−65
+15.4%
Far Cry 5 16
+33.3%
12
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%

This is how GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 50% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 50% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 85% faster in 4K

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

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 128% faster.
  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon 780M is 34% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 24 tests (38%)
  • Radeon 780M is ahead in 38 tests (60%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.47 15.70
Recency 2 April 2020 6 December 2023
Chip lithography 12 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 15 Watt

Radeon 780M has a 8.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 200% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q and Radeon 780M.

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 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q
AMD Radeon 780M
Radeon 780M

Other comparisons

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.


3.8 217 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1781 vote

Rate Radeon 780M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q or Radeon 780M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.