GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs GTX 980 Mobile

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Mobile and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 980 Mobile
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
21.57
+34.5%

GTX 980 Mobile outperforms GTX 1650 Max-Q by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking256336
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation19.52no data
Power efficiency7.3936.65
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGM204TU117
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date21 September 2015 (9 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$395.82 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 cores20481024
Core clock speed1064 MHz930 MHz
Boost clock speed1216 MHz1125 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100-200 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate136.272.00
Floating-point processing power4.358 TFLOPS2.304 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs12864

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
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 amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth224 GB/s112.1 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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2No outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC support+-
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
BatteryBoost+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.140
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. 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 980 Mobile 21.57
+34.5%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 16.04

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 980 Mobile 17201
+55.2%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 11083

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 980 Mobile 39702
+28.2%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 30957

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 980 Mobile 13047
+67.7%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 7779

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 980 Mobile 76705
+69.5%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 45244

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 980 Mobile 347481
GTX 1650 Max-Q 373879
+7.6%

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 HD98
+71.9%
57
−71.9%
1440p40−45
+33.3%
30
−33.3%
4K45
+200%
15
−200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.04no data
1440p9.90no data
4K8.80no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+44%
24−27
−44%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
+0%
49
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+46.2%
24−27
−46.2%
Battlefield 5 70−75
+15.9%
63
−15.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+7.1%
42
−7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+44%
24−27
−44%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+6.3%
48
−6.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+0%
59
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
−45.5%
195
+45.5%
Hitman 3 40−45
+41.9%
30−35
−41.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+31.3%
80−85
−31.3%
Metro Exodus 75−80
+8.5%
71
−8.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+9.3%
54
−9.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75
+42.3%
50−55
−42.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+19.8%
80−85
−19.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
−40.8%
69
+40.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+46.2%
24−27
−46.2%
Battlefield 5 70−75
+32.7%
55
−32.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+12.5%
40
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+44%
24−27
−44%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+34.2%
38
−34.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+43.9%
41
−43.9%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
−33.6%
179
+33.6%
Hitman 3 40−45
+41.9%
30−35
−41.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+31.3%
80−85
−31.3%
Metro Exodus 75−80
+32.8%
58
−32.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+31.1%
45
−31.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75
+42.3%
50−55
−42.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 124
+226%
35−40
−226%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+19.8%
80−85
−19.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
+145%
20
−145%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+46.2%
24−27
−46.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+80%
25
−80%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+44%
24−27
−44%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+96.2%
26
−96.2%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+144%
55
−144%
Hitman 3 40−45
+41.9%
30−35
−41.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+31.3%
80−85
−31.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75
+42.3%
50−55
−42.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+46.7%
30
−46.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+19.8%
80−85
−19.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+40.5%
42
−40.5%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+27.3%
33
−27.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+30.8%
26
−30.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+35.3%
17
−35.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+61.5%
12−14
−61.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+47.1%
16−18
−47.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+36.8%
19
−36.8%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0.8%
124
−0.8%
Hitman 3 24−27
+36.8%
18−20
−36.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+36.4%
30−35
−36.4%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+31.3%
32
−31.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+52.9%
16−18
−52.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+30.6%
95−100
−30.6%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+42.3%
24−27
−42.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+100%
11
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+30.8%
13
−30.8%
Hitman 3 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+42%
80−85
−42%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+9.1%
22
−9.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+66.7%
18
−66.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+62.5%
8
−62.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+33.3%
9
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+36.4%
21−24
−36.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+46.2%
13
−46.2%

This is how GTX 980 Mobile and GTX 1650 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 980 Mobile is 72% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 980 Mobile is 33% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 980 Mobile is 200% faster in 4K

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 980 Mobile is 226% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 Max-Q is 46% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 980 Mobile is ahead in 67 tests (93%)
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is ahead in 3 tests (4%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.57 16.04
Recency 21 September 2015 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 30 Watt

GTX 980 Mobile has a 34.5% higher aggregate performance score.

GTX 1650 Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q in performance tests.


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

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 980 Mobile
GeForce GTX 980 Mobile
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 76 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 980 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 620 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.