GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition vs GTX 1650 Mobile

Place in the ranking	302	564
Place by popularity	68	not in top-100
Power efficiency	25.48	3.79
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	TU117	GK104
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	15 April 2020 (4 years ago)	8 November 2013 (11 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	1536
Core clock speed	1380 MHz	771 MHz
Boost clock speed	1560 MHz	797 MHz
Number of transistors	4,700 million	3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	122 Watt
Texture fill rate	99.84	102.0
Floating-point processing power	3.195 TFLOPS	2.448 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	64	128

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	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-B (3.0)

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 GB/s	160.0 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 Connectors

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.140	1.1.126
CUDA	7.5	3.0

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 HD	59 +181%	21−24 −181%
1440p	36 +200%	12−14 −200%
4K	23 +188%	8−9 −188%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	38 +217%	12−14 −217%
Cyberpunk 2077	52 +189%	18−20 −189%
Elden Ring	47 +194%	16−18 −194%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	66 +214%	21−24 −214%
Counter-Strike 2	33 +230%	10−11 −230%
Cyberpunk 2077	35 +192%	12−14 −192%
Forza Horizon 4	79 +193%	27−30 −193%
Metro Exodus	55 +206%	18−20 −206%
Red Dead Redemption 2	71 +196%	24−27 −196%
Valorant	83 +177%	30−33 −177%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	72 +200%	24−27 −200%
Counter-Strike 2	27 +200%	9−10 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	28 +180%	10−11 −180%
Dota 2	72 +200%	24−27 −200%
Elden Ring	65 +210%	21−24 −210%
Far Cry 5	62 +195%	21−24 −195%
Fortnite	95−100 +183%	35−40 −183%
Forza Horizon 4	64 +205%	21−24 −205%
Grand Theft Auto V	59 +181%	21−24 −181%
Metro Exodus	40 +186%	14−16 −186%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	165 +200%	55−60 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +200%	9−10 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +176%	21−24 −176%
Valorant	47 +194%	16−18 −194%
World of Tanks	130 +189%	45−50 −189%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	56 +211%	18−20 −211%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +230%	10−11 −230%
Cyberpunk 2077	25 +178%	9−10 −178%
Dota 2	89 +197%	30−33 −197%
Far Cry 5	73 +204%	24−27 −204%
Forza Horizon 4	55 +206%	18−20 −206%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +182%	45−50 −182%
Valorant	75−80 +178%	27−30 −178%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
Elden Ring	30−33 +200%	10−11 −200%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +190%	10−11 −190%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +178%	60−65 −178%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +183%	6−7 −183%
World of Tanks	120−130 +182%	45−50 −182%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	37 +208%	12−14 −208%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +200%	5−6 −200%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +200%	16−18 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +194%	16−18 −194%
Metro Exodus	39 +179%	14−16 −179%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +178%	9−10 −178%
Valorant	45−50 +194%	16−18 −194%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Dota 2	30−35 +210%	10−11 −210%
Elden Ring	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +210%	10−11 −210%
Metro Exodus	12 +200%	4−5 −200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	47 +194%	16−18 −194%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +210%	10−11 −210%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	17 +183%	6−7 −183%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 +200%	2−3 −200%
Dota 2	45 +181%	16−18 −181%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +200%	8−9 −200%
Fortnite	23 +188%	8−9 −188%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +200%	9−10 −200%
Valorant	21−24 +214%	7−8 −214%

This is how GTX 1650 Mobile and GTX 780M Mac Edition compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 Mobile is 181% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Mobile is 200% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Mobile is 188% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.51	6.72
Recency	15 April 2020	8 November 2013
Chip lithography	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	122 Watt

GTX 1650 Mobile has a 175.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 144% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780M Mac Edition in performance tests.

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