GeForce Go 6800 vs GTX 1650 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile and GeForce Go 6800, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1650 Mobile outperforms Go 6800 by a whopping 6533% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 315 | 1363 |
| Place by popularity | 54 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 25.32 | 0.42 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | NV41 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 April 2020 (4 years ago) | 8 November 2004 (20 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 | 17 |
| Core clock speed | 1380 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 190 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 99.84 | 3.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.195 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 12 |
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 | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-III |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 35.2 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.0 (full) 2.1 (partial) |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| 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.
- Passmark
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.
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 | 58 | 0−1 |
| 1440p | 37 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 23 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 69
+6800%
|
1−2
−6800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 131
+13000%
|
1−2
−13000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Atomic Heart | 51
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 113
+11200%
|
1−2
−11200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 90−95
+9300%
|
1−2
−9300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82
+2633%
|
3−4
−2633%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 68
+6700%
|
1−2
−6700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+829%
|
7−8
−829%
|
| Valorant | 164
+531%
|
24−27
−531%
|
| Atomic Heart | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 67
+6600%
|
1−2
−6600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130
+983%
|
12−14
−983%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Dota 2 | 96
+967%
|
9−10
−967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 54 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 90−95
+9300%
|
1−2
−9300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
+2567%
|
3−4
−2567%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 59 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 33 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+829%
|
7−8
−829%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| Valorant | 148
+469%
|
24−27
−469%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 59 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Dota 2 | 89
+889%
|
9−10
−889%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 62
+1967%
|
3−4
−1967%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 71
+914%
|
7−8
−914%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+415%
|
24−27
−415%
|
| Fortnite | 72
+7100%
|
1−2
−7100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+12500%
|
1−2
−12500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+5367%
|
3−4
−5367%
|
| Valorant | 159
+7850%
|
2−3
−7850%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 47 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 44 | 0−1 |
| Atomic Heart | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+113%
|
14−16
−113%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 90
+4400%
|
2−3
−4400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 25 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 45 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 1650 Mobile is 6800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1650 Mobile surpassed Go 6800 in all 28 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.92 | 0.24 |
| Recency | 15 April 2020 | 8 November 2004 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
GTX 1650 Mobile has a 6533.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 983.3% more advanced lithography process.
Go 6800, on the other hand, has 11.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 6800 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
