GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile vs TITAN RTX

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared TITAN RTX with GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

TITAN RTX
2018
24 GB GDDR6, 280 Watt
48.87
+165%

TITAN RTX outperforms GTX 1650 Mobile by a whopping 165% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking63295
Place by popularitynot in top-10079
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.10no data
Power efficiency12.0925.54
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameTU102TU117
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date18 December 2018 (5 years ago)15 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,499 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 cores46081024
Core clock speed1350 MHz1380 MHz
Boost clock speed1770 MHz1560 MHz
Number of transistors18,600 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)280 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate509.899.84
Floating-point processing power16.31 TFLOPS3.195 TFLOPS
ROPs9632
TMUs28864
Tensor Cores576no data
Ray Tracing Cores72no data

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 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount24 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth672.0 GB/s192.0 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-CNo outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.56.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.140
CUDA7.57.5

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.

TITAN RTX 48.87
+165%
GTX 1650 Mobile 18.44

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.

TITAN RTX 18858
+165%
GTX 1650 Mobile 7116

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.

TITAN RTX 49602
+278%
GTX 1650 Mobile 13132

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.

TITAN RTX 99561
+218%
GTX 1650 Mobile 31311

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.

TITAN RTX 35884
+285%
GTX 1650 Mobile 9313

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.

TITAN RTX 177234
+209%
GTX 1650 Mobile 57365

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.

TITAN RTX 537413
+47.3%
GTX 1650 Mobile 364872

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 HD163
+186%
57
−186%
1440p104
+189%
36
−189%
4K74
+208%
24
−208%

Cost per frame, $

1080p15.33no data
1440p24.03no data
4K33.77no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 79
+51.9%
52
−51.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 104
+89.1%
55
−89.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 104
+148%
42
−148%
Battlefield 5 209
+158%
81
−158%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 143
+180%
51
−180%
Cyberpunk 2077 79
+92.7%
41
−92.7%
Far Cry 5 127
+92.4%
66
−92.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 201
+154%
79
−154%
Forza Horizon 4 281
+69.3%
166
−69.3%
Hitman 3 117
+149%
47
−149%
Horizon Zero Dawn 348
+112%
164
−112%
Metro Exodus 144
+75.6%
82
−75.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 127
+78.9%
71
−78.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 206
+76.1%
117
−76.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 215
+47.3%
146
−47.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 186
+133%
80
−133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 88
+267%
24
−267%
Battlefield 5 203
+190%
70
−190%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 131
+179%
47
−179%
Cyberpunk 2077 79
+147%
32
−147%
Far Cry 5 101
+90.6%
53
−90.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 154
+185%
54
−185%
Forza Horizon 4 254
+71.6%
148
−71.6%
Hitman 3 116
+176%
42
−176%
Horizon Zero Dawn 336
+127%
148
−127%
Metro Exodus 144
+112%
68
−112%
Red Dead Redemption 2 110
+100%
55
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 286
+347%
64
−347%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−110
+140%
40−45
−140%
Watch Dogs: Legion 204
+44.7%
141
−44.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 79
+163%
30
−163%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 80
+900%
8
−900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 102
+200%
34
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 78
+160%
30
−160%
Far Cry 5 79
+97.5%
40
−97.5%
Forza Horizon 4 175
+182%
62
−182%
Hitman 3 111
+200%
37
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 218
+282%
57
−282%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 242
+340%
55
−340%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 139
+286%
36
−286%
Watch Dogs: Legion 86
+406%
17
−406%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 123
+137%
52
−137%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 95−100
+128%
43
−128%
Far Cry New Dawn 75−80
+121%
34
−121%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+145%
22
−145%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 66
+313%
16−18
−313%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 79
+295%
20−22
−295%
Cyberpunk 2077 66
+340%
15
−340%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+128%
25
−128%
Forza Horizon 4 250−260
+158%
99
−158%
Hitman 3 100
+285%
26
−285%
Horizon Zero Dawn 168
+282%
44
−282%
Metro Exodus 114
+192%
39
−192%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 183
+408%
35−40
−408%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80
+267%
21−24
−267%
Watch Dogs: Legion 205
+78.3%
115
−78.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 119
+261%
33
−261%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 88
+319%
21
−319%
Far Cry New Dawn 67
+294%
17
−294%
Hitman 3 48
+243%
14
−243%
Horizon Zero Dawn 150
+233%
45
−233%
Metro Exodus 121
+365%
26
−365%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 103
+390%
21
−390%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 52
+333%
12
−333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 43
+378%
9−10
−378%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50
+400%
10−11
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 33
+560%
5
−560%
Far Cry 5 49
+308%
12
−308%
Forza Horizon 4 114
+356%
24−27
−356%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 109
+445%
20−22
−445%
Watch Dogs: Legion 43
+438%
8−9
−438%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 74
+335%
17
−335%

This is how TITAN RTX and GTX 1650 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • TITAN RTX is 186% faster in 1080p
  • TITAN RTX is 189% faster in 1440p
  • TITAN RTX is 208% faster in 4K

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

  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the TITAN RTX is 900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, TITAN RTX surpassed GTX 1650 Mobile in all 72 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 48.87 18.44
Recency 18 December 2018 15 April 2020
Maximum RAM amount 24 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 280 Watt 50 Watt

TITAN RTX has a 165% higher aggregate performance score, and a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1650 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 460% lower power consumption.

The TITAN RTX is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that TITAN RTX is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 1650 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 TITAN RTX
TITAN RTX
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile

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.


3.6 808 votes

Rate TITAN RTX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 3227 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 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.