GeForce GTX 1650 vs GTX 485M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 485M with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.

GTX 485M
2011
2 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
6.12

GTX 1650 outperforms GTX 485M by a whopping 234% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking591279
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data37.82
Power efficiency4.2118.74
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGF104TU117
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date5 January 2011 (14 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores384896
Core clock speed1150 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1665 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate36.8093.24
Floating-point processing power0.8832 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs6456

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth96.0 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
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.

GTX 485M 6.12
GTX 1650 20.45
+234%

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
    • 3DMark Vantage Performance

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 485M 2359
GTX 1650 7880
+234%

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 485M 2709
GTX 1650 13645
+404%

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 485M 13536
GTX 1650 44694
+230%

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:

900p48
−233%
160−170
+233%
Full HD66
−4.5%
69
+4.5%
1440p12−14
−242%
41
+242%
4K7−8
−257%
25
+257%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.16
1440pno data3.63
4Kno data5.96

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 14−16
−264%
50−55
+264%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−200%
35−40
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−242%
40−45
+242%
Atomic Heart 14−16
−264%
50−55
+264%
Battlefield 5 24−27
−154%
61
+154%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−200%
35−40
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−242%
40−45
+242%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−306%
69
+306%
Fortnite 35−40
−503%
211
+503%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−246%
90
+246%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
−362%
60
+362%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
−329%
90
+329%
Valorant 65−70
−336%
292
+336%
Atomic Heart 14−16
−264%
50−55
+264%
Battlefield 5 24−27
−121%
53
+121%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−200%
35−40
+200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
−141%
230−240
+141%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−242%
40−45
+242%
Dota 2 45−50
−106%
97
+106%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−271%
63
+271%
Fortnite 35−40
−143%
85
+143%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−219%
83
+219%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
−315%
50−55
+315%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
−305%
81
+305%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−218%
35
+218%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
−310%
86
+310%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−373%
71
+373%
Valorant 65−70
−288%
260
+288%
Battlefield 5 24−27
−113%
51
+113%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−200%
35−40
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−242%
40−45
+242%
Dota 2 45−50
−95.7%
92
+95.7%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−247%
59
+247%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−150%
65
+150%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
−215%
41
+215%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
−214%
66
+214%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−173%
41
+173%
Valorant 65−70
−4.5%
70
+4.5%
Fortnite 35−40
−74.3%
61
+74.3%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−163%
21−24
+163%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 40−45
−216%
130−140
+216%
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8
−471%
40
+471%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−300%
20
+300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
−365%
170−180
+365%
Valorant 65−70
−172%
177
+172%
Battlefield 5 8−9
−388%
39
+388%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−350%
18−20
+350%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−264%
40
+264%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−229%
46
+229%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
−289%
35−40
+289%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−244%
31
+244%
Fortnite 10−12
−282%
42
+282%
Atomic Heart 5−6
−200%
14−16
+200%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 9−10
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−94.1%
33
+94.1%
Metro Exodus 0−1 12
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−767%
26
+767%
Valorant 27−30
−186%
83
+186%
Battlefield 5 4−5
−425%
21
+425%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 9−10
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Dota 2 20−22
−195%
59
+195%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−217%
19
+217%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−275%
30
+275%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
−467%
16−18
+467%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−333%
26
+333%
Fortnite 6−7
−83.3%
11
+83.3%

This is how GTX 485M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 233% faster in 900p
  • GTX 1650 is 5% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 242% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 257% faster in 4K

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 767% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 1650 surpassed GTX 485M in all 64 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.12 20.45
Recency 5 January 2011 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 75 Watt

GTX 1650 has a 234.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 485M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 485M is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.

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 485M
GeForce GTX 485M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

Other comparisons

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.


1
3 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 485M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8
24735 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 485M or GeForce GTX 1650, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.