GeForce GTX 1650 vs ATI Radeon IGP 340M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon IGP 340M with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 outperforms ATI IGP 340M by a whopping 204700% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1529 | 272 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 37.80 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 18.84 |
| Architecture | Rage 6 (2000−2007) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | RS200 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 October 2002 (22 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.
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 | 2 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 183 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 180 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 30 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 180 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 0.37 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 2 | 32 |
| TMUs | 2 | 56 |
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).
| Interface | AGP 4x | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 7.0 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 1.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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. 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.
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.
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 | -0−1 | 69 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 40 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 23 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.16 |
| 1440p | no data | 3.73 |
| 4K | no data | 6.48 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−363%
|
35−40
+363%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4000%
|
40−45
+4000%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−363%
|
35−40
+363%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1600%
|
17
+1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2250%
|
94
+2250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−2467%
|
77
+2467%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−363%
|
35−40
+363%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14
+1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1700%
|
90
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1750%
|
74
+1750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−3325%
|
130−140
+3325%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−833%
|
28
+833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1525%
|
65−70
+1525%
|
| World of Tanks | 8−9
−2838%
|
230−240
+2838%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−363%
|
35−40
+363%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12
+1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1260%
|
65−70
+1260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1450%
|
62
+1450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−1425%
|
61
+1425%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 0−1 | 170−180 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−250%
|
7
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1300%
|
55−60
+1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−900%
|
40
+900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−93.3%
|
29
+93.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−93.3%
|
29
+93.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−93.3%
|
29
+93.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−293%
|
59
+293%
|
| Valorant | 0−1 | 21 |
Full HD
Low Preset
| Elden Ring | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Valorant | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 1650 is 4000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 29 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 32 tests (52%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.01 | 20.48 |
| Recency | 5 October 2002 | 23 April 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 12 nm |
GTX 1650 has a 204700% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, and a 1400% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon IGP 340M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon IGP 340M 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
