GeForce GT 420M vs GTX 1650 Mobile

Place in the ranking	296	1101
Place by popularity	78	not in top-100
Power efficiency	25.73	3.12
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	TU117	GF108
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	15 April 2020 (4 years ago)	3 September 2010 (14 years 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 cores	1024	96
Core clock speed	1380 MHz	500 MHz
Boost clock speed	1560 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,700 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	23 Watt
Texture fill rate	99.84	8.000
Floating-point processing power	3.195 TFLOPS	0.192 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	4
TMUs	64	16

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	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16

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	GDDR6	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 GB/s	25.6 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

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 API
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.140	N/A
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.

GTX 1650 Mobile 18.45
+1691%

GT 420M 1.03

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 Mobile 7116
+1692%

GT 420M 397

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 Mobile 13132
+1817%

GT 420M 685

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 Mobile 31311
+926%

GT 420M 3051

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	210−220 +1650%	12 −1650%
Full HD	57 +235%	17 −235%
1440p	37 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
4K	22 +2100%	1−2 −2100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

52
+1633%

3−4

−1633%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55 +1000%	5−6 −1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	42 +2000%	2−3 −2000%
Battlefield 5	81 +1925%	4−5 −1925%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	51 +1175%	4−5 −1175%
Cyberpunk 2077	41 +1267%	3−4 −1267%
Far Cry 5	66 +6500%	1−2 −6500%
Far Cry New Dawn	79 +3850%	2−3 −3850%
Forza Horizon 4	166	0−1
Hitman 3	47 +840%	5−6 −840%
Horizon Zero Dawn	164 +1162%	12−14 −1162%
Metro Exodus	82 +1950%	4−5 −1950%
Red Dead Redemption 2	71 +7000%	1−2 −7000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	117 +1571%	7−8 −1571%
Watch Dogs: Legion	146 +356%	30−35 −356%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	80 +1500%	5−6 −1500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Battlefield 5	70 +2233%	3−4 −2233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	47 +1075%	4−5 −1075%
Cyberpunk 2077	32 +967%	3−4 −967%
Far Cry 5	53 +5200%	1−2 −5200%
Far Cry New Dawn	54 +2600%	2−3 −2600%
Forza Horizon 4	148	0−1
Hitman 3	42 +740%	5−6 −740%
Horizon Zero Dawn	148 +1038%	12−14 −1038%
Metro Exodus	68 +2167%	3−4 −2167%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55 +5400%	1−2 −5400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	64 +814%	7−8 −814%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +282%	10−12 −282%
Watch Dogs: Legion	141 +341%	30−35 −341%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30 +500%	5−6 −500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	34 +750%	4−5 −750%
Cyberpunk 2077	30 +900%	3−4 −900%
Far Cry 5	40 +3900%	1−2 −3900%
Forza Horizon 4	62	0−1
Hitman 3	37 +640%	5−6 −640%
Horizon Zero Dawn	57 +338%	12−14 −338%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55 +686%	7−8 −686%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	36 +227%	10−12 −227%
Watch Dogs: Legion	17 −88.2%	30−35 +88.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

52
+5100%

1−2

−5100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	43 +4200%	1−2 −4200%
Far Cry New Dawn	34 +3300%	1−2 −3300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	22 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Far Cry 5	25 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Forza Horizon 4	99 +1880%	5−6 −1880%
Hitman 3	26 +271%	7−8 −271%
Horizon Zero Dawn	44 +1000%	4−5 −1000%
Metro Exodus	39 +1850%	2−3 −1850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +1700%	2−3 −1700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	115 +2775%	4−5 −2775%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

33
+725%

4−5

−725%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Far Cry New Dawn	17	0−1
Hitman 3	14	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	45 +2150%	2−3 −2150%
Metro Exodus	26 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21 +2000%	1−2 −2000%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	5	0−1
Far Cry 5	12	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

17
+750%

2−3

−750%

This is how GTX 1650 Mobile and GT 420M compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 Mobile is 1650% faster in 900p
GTX 1650 Mobile is 235% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Mobile is 1750% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Mobile is 2100% faster in 4K

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

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 Mobile is 7000% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 420M is 88% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 1650 Mobile is ahead in 42 tests (98%)
GT 420M is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.45	1.03
Recency	15 April 2020	3 September 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	23 Watt

GTX 1650 Mobile has a 1691.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

GT 420M, on the other hand, has 117.4% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 420M in performance tests.

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