GeForce GTX 1650 vs GTX 460M

Place in performance ranking	747	267
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	40.72
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	N11E-GS	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	3 September 2010 (14 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	192	896
Core clock speed	675 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	1,170 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	21.60	93.24
Floating-point performance	0.5184 gflops	2.984 gflops

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	large	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1536 MB	4 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	60.0 GB/s	128.0 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API with Feature Level 12.1	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 460M 3.23

GTX 1650 20.41
+532%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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 460M 1245

GTX 1650 7875
+533%

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 460M 7507

GTX 1650 44694
+495%

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 460M 1623

GTX 1650 13645
+741%

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 460M 1370

GTX 1650 9203
+572%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 460M 4090

GTX 1650 39199
+858%

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	30 −500%	180−190 +500%
Full HD	38 −84.2%	70 +84.2%
1440p	6−7 −533%	38 +533%
4K	3−4 −667%	23 +667%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7

−433%

30−35
+433%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 −430%	53 +430%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −2250%	47 +2250%
Battlefield 5	6−7 −1217%	79 +1217%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −550%	52 +550%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −433%	30−35 +433%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −967%	64 +967%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 −789%	80 +789%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −1172%	229 +1172%
Hitman 3	8−9 −513%	49 +513%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 −1117%	292 +1117%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −1920%	101 +1920%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −863%	77 +863%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −785%	115 +785%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −460%	224 +460%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 −730%	83 +730%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −1650%	35 +1650%
Battlefield 5	6−7 −1100%	72 +1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −475%	46 +475%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −433%	30−35 +433%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −767%	52 +767%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 −522%	56 +522%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −1017%	201 +1017%
Hitman 3	8−9 −488%	47 +488%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 −983%	260 +983%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −1320%	71 +1320%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −588%	55 +588%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −469%	74 +469%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −207%	45−50 +207%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −415%	206 +415%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 −150%	25 +150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −550%	13 +550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −433%	30−35 +433%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −550%	39 +550%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −261%	65 +261%
Hitman 3	8−9 −413%	41 +413%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 −150%	60 +150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −377%	62 +377%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −180%	42 +180%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +90.5%	21 −90.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

−575%

54
+575%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −600%	42 +600%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −620%	36 +620%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −500%	18 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1050%	21−24 +1050%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −500%	24 +500%
Hitman 3	8−9 −238%	27 +238%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −438%	43 +438%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −1100%	24−27 +1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	20−22 −625%	145 +625%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

−400%

35
+400%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1900%	20 +1900%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −750%	17 +750%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −550%	13 +550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −400%	5 +400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −1000%	10−12 +1000%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1100%	12 +1100%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −2900%	30 +2900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −700%	8 +700%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−325%

17
+325%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +0%	13 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	122 +0%	122 +0%
Metro Exodus	41 +0%	41 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45 +0%	45 +0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3	13 +0%	13 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	41 +0%	41 +0%
Metro Exodus	27 +0%	27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	26 +0%	26 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	26 +0%	26 +0%

This is how GTX 460M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 500% faster in 900p
GTX 1650 is 84% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 533% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 667% faster in 4K

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 460M is 90% faster.
in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 is 2900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 460M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
GTX 1650 is ahead in 60 tests (83%)
there's a draw in 11 tests (15%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.23	20.41
Recency	3 September 2010	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	1536 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	75 Watt

GTX 460M has 50% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 531.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 460M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 460M is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.

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