GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q vs GTX 560 SE

Place in the ranking	635	327
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.13	no data
Power efficiency	2.27	22.89
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GF114	TU117
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	20 February 2012 (12 years ago)	2 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$89.99	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	288	1024
Core clock speed	736 MHz	1035 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1200 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	35.33	76.80
Floating-point processing power	0.8479 TFLOPS	2.458 TFLOPS
ROPs	24	32
TMUs	48	64

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	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	210 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	957 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	91.87 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	2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.140
CUDA	2.1	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 560 SE 4.97

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 16.69
+236%

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 560 SE 1914

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 6427
+236%

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 560 SE 2400

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 8564
+257%

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	16−18 −256%	57 +256%
1440p	10−12 −240%	34 +240%
4K	6−7 −267%	22 +267%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	5.62	no data
1440p	9.00	no data
4K	15.00	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

24−27

+0%

24−27

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	49 +0%	49 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	38 +0%	38 +0%
Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45 +0%	45 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Hitman 3	45 +0%	45 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Metro Exodus	86 +0%	86 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	63 +0%	63 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	202 +0%	202 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24 +0%	24 +0%
Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	34 +0%	34 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Hitman 3	43 +0%	43 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Metro Exodus	66 +0%	66 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	46 +0%	46 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	62 +0%	62 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	193 +0%	193 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	19 +0%	19 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12 +0%	12 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	22 +0%	22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Hitman 3	38 +0%	38 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	57 +0%	57 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	54 +0%	54 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	32 +0%	32 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16 +0%	16 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12 +0%	12 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Hitman 3	25 +0%	25 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	41 +0%	41 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35 +0%	35 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	130 +0%	130 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30

+0%

27−30

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Hitman 3	14 +0%	14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 +0%	20 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5 +0%	5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21 +0%	21 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

This is how GTX 560 SE and GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 256% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 240% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 267% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.97	16.69
Recency	20 February 2012	2 April 2020
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	50 Watt

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q has a 235.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 SE in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 560 SE is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is a notebook one.

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