RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile vs GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile with RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile
2020
4 GB GDDR6, 50 Watt
20.21

RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms GTX 1650 Ti Mobile by a whopping 143% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking26862
Place by popularity69not in top-100
Power efficiency28.1729.74
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameTU116no data
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date23 April 2020 (4 years ago)21 March 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 cores10245120
Core clock speed1350 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1485 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,600 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology12 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt115 Watt (60 - 115 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate95.04no data
Floating-point processing power3.041 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs64no data

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 sizedlarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data

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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB12 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz16000 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.0 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 outputsno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.2.140-
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. 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 Ti Mobile 20.21
RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile 49.06
+143%

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 Mobile 7796
RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile 18928
+143%

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 Mobile 13266
RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile 41630
+214%

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 Mobile 9930
RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile 29248
+195%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 3618
RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile 12806
+254%

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 HD58
−141%
140−150
+141%
1440p42
−138%
100−110
+138%
4K27
−141%
65−70
+141%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 59
−137%
140−150
+137%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 61
−130%
140−150
+130%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 49
−124%
110−120
+124%
Battlefield 5 65−70
−142%
160−170
+142%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 53
−126%
120−130
+126%
Cyberpunk 2077 46
−139%
110−120
+139%
Far Cry 5 69
−132%
160−170
+132%
Far Cry New Dawn 84
−138%
200−210
+138%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
−142%
300−310
+142%
Hitman 3 51
−135%
120−130
+135%
Horizon Zero Dawn 181
−121%
400−450
+121%
Metro Exodus 91
−142%
220−230
+142%
Red Dead Redemption 2 44
−127%
100−105
+127%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
−139%
160−170
+139%
Watch Dogs: Legion 201
−124%
450−500
+124%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
−122%
100−105
+122%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 32
−134%
75−80
+134%
Battlefield 5 65−70
−142%
160−170
+142%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 47
−134%
110−120
+134%
Cyberpunk 2077 36
−136%
85−90
+136%
Far Cry 5 58
−141%
140−150
+141%
Far Cry New Dawn 59
−137%
140−150
+137%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
−142%
300−310
+142%
Hitman 3 50
−140%
120−130
+140%
Horizon Zero Dawn 180
−122%
400−450
+122%
Metro Exodus 79
−141%
190−200
+141%
Red Dead Redemption 2 39
−131%
90−95
+131%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75
−140%
180−190
+140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
−122%
100−105
+122%
Watch Dogs: Legion 183
−119%
400−450
+119%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27
−141%
65−70
+141%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 15
−133%
35−40
+133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 31
−142%
75−80
+142%
Cyberpunk 2077 34
−135%
80−85
+135%
Far Cry 5 39
−131%
90−95
+131%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
−142%
300−310
+142%
Hitman 3 43
−133%
100−105
+133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 64
−134%
150−160
+134%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 63
−138%
150−160
+138%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 39
−131%
90−95
+131%
Watch Dogs: Legion 22
−127%
50−55
+127%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 41
−132%
95−100
+132%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
−131%
90−95
+131%
Far Cry New Dawn 38
−137%
90−95
+137%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−138%
50−55
+138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
−122%
40−45
+122%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−127%
50−55
+127%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
−119%
35−40
+119%
Far Cry 5 26
−131%
60−65
+131%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
−139%
270−280
+139%
Hitman 3 28
−132%
65−70
+132%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
−132%
95−100
+132%
Metro Exodus 35−40
−137%
90−95
+137%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
−132%
95−100
+132%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−139%
55−60
+139%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120
−142%
290−300
+142%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
−142%
80−85
+142%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
−125%
45−50
+125%
Far Cry New Dawn 20
−125%
45−50
+125%
Hitman 3 16
−119%
35−40
+119%
Horizon Zero Dawn 42
−138%
100−105
+138%
Metro Exodus 21−24
−127%
50−55
+127%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 25
−140%
60−65
+140%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−125%
27−30
+125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
−140%
24−27
+140%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
−118%
24−27
+118%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
−133%
14−16
+133%
Far Cry 5 12
−125%
27−30
+125%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
−132%
65−70
+132%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
−139%
55−60
+139%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
−122%
40−45
+122%

This is how GTX 1650 Ti Mobile and RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile is 141% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile is 138% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile is 141% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.21 49.06
Recency 23 April 2020 21 March 2023
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 12 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 115 Watt

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile has 130% lower power consumption.

RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile, on the other hand, has a 142.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is a notebook graphics card while RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile is a mobile 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 Ti Mobile
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile
NVIDIA RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile
RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile

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.


4 1635 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile 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.