GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile vs NVS 310

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
NVS 300 NVS 310 NVS 315 NVS 510 NVS 810
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GTX 1050 Mobile GTX 1050 Ti Mobile GTX 1060 Mobile GTX 1650 Mobile GTX 1650 Max-Q GTX 1650 Mobile Refresh GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q GTX 1650 Ti Mobile GTX 1660 Mobile GTX 1660 Ti Mobile GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q GTX 1660 Ti Mobile Refresh

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 310 with GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile, including specs and performance data.

NVS 310
2012
512 MB DDR3, 20 Watt
0.65

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile outperforms NVS 310 by a whopping 3009% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

NVS 310 NVS 310
GTX 1650 Ti Mobile GTX 1650 Ti Mobile

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1186268
Place by popularitynot in top-10069
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency2.2728.17
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGF119TU116
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date26 June 2012 (12 years ago)23 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$159 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 cores481024
Core clock speed523 MHz1350 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1485 MHz
Number of transistors292 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate4.18495.04
Floating-point processing power0.1004 TFLOPS3.041 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs864

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length156 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed875 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth14 GB/s192.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors2x DisplayPortNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.140
CUDA2.17.5

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.

NVS 310 0.65
GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 20.21
+3009%

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.

NVS 310 251
GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 7796
+3006%

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 HD1−2
−5700%
58
+5700%
1440p1−2
−4100%
42
+4100%
4K0−127

Cost per frame, $

1080p159.00no data
1440p159.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 59
+0%
59
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 61
+0%
61
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 49
+0%
49
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 53
+0%
53
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 46
+0%
46
+0%
Far Cry 5 69
+0%
69
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 84
+0%
84
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Hitman 3 51
+0%
51
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 181
+0%
181
+0%
Metro Exodus 91
+0%
91
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 44
+0%
44
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 201
+0%
201
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 32
+0%
32
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 47
+0%
47
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 36
+0%
36
+0%
Far Cry 5 58
+0%
58
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 59
+0%
59
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Hitman 3 50
+0%
50
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 180
+0%
180
+0%
Metro Exodus 79
+0%
79
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 39
+0%
39
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75
+0%
75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 183
+0%
183
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27
+0%
27
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 15
+0%
15
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 31
+0%
31
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 34
+0%
34
+0%
Far Cry 5 39
+0%
39
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Hitman 3 43
+0%
43
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 64
+0%
64
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 63
+0%
63
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 39
+0%
39
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 22
+0%
22
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 41
+0%
41
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 38
+0%
38
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16
+0%
16
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Hitman 3 28
+0%
28
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120
+0%
120
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 20
+0%
20
+0%
Hitman 3 16
+0%
16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 42
+0%
42
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 25
+0%
25
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
+0%
6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

This is how NVS 310 and GTX 1650 Ti Mobile compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is 5700% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is 4100% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.65 20.21
Recency 26 June 2012 23 April 2020
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 50 Watt

NVS 310 has 150% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile, on the other hand, has a 3009.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 310 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is a notebook one.

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 NVS 310
NVS 310
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile
Like
Like

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

NVS 310 NVS 310
vs
FX 5500 Quadro FX 5500
GTX 1650 Ti Mobile GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile
vs
Radeon 880M Radeon 880M
NVS 310 NVS 310
vs
FX 3500 Quadro FX 3500
GTX 760 X2 GeForce GTX 760 X2
vs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EU Mobile Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EU Mobile
HD 7870 XT Radeon HD 7870 XT
vs
RTX 2070 Mobile Refresh GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile Refresh
GTX 1660 Super GeForce GTX 1660 Super
vs
FX 5500 GeForce FX 5500
FX 3800 Quadro FX 3800
vs
HD 8570 OEM Radeon HD 8570 OEM
FX 5800 Quadro FX 5800
vs
P106-100 P106 100
9800 GTX+ GeForce 9800 GTX+
vs
3dfx Voodoo4-2 4200 PCI 32 MB
RTX 3080 12 GB GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB
vs
RTX TITAN Ada RTX TITAN Ada
GT 740 GeForce GT 740
vs
Vega 7 Mobile Radeon Vega 7 Mobile
Quadro 600 Quadro 600
vs
Volari V5
GT 230 OEM GeForce GT 230 OEM
vs
Thames Thames

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.3 81 vote

Rate NVS 310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 1635 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 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.