Moore Threads MTT S80 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile with Moore Threads MTT S80, including specs and performance data.
1650 Mobile outperforms Moore Threads MTT S80 by a whopping 191% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 360 | 657 |
| Place by popularity | 77 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 26.44 | 1.78 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | MUSA 2nd Gen (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | Chunxiao |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 April 2020 (6 years ago) | 11 November 2022 (3 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 1380 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 22.0 billion |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 255 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 99.84 | 460.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.195 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 256 |
| TMUs | 64 | 256 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 4 MB |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 285 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.140 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | 58
+222%
| 18−20
−222%
|
| 1440p | 37
+208%
| 12−14
−208%
|
| 4K | 23
+229%
| 7−8
−229%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 69
+229%
|
21−24
−229%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 131
+228%
|
40−45
−228%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+225%
|
16−18
−225%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 51
+219%
|
16−18
−219%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+233%
|
18−20
−233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 113
+223%
|
35−40
−223%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+233%
|
18−20
−233%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+213%
|
30−33
−213%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82
+204%
|
27−30
−204%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 68
+224%
|
21−24
−224%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+210%
|
21−24
−210%
|
| Valorant | 164
+198%
|
55−60
−198%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 30
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+233%
|
18−20
−233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 67
+219%
|
21−24
−219%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130
+225%
|
40−45
−225%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Dota 2 | 96
+220%
|
30−33
−220%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 54
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+213%
|
30−33
−213%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
+196%
|
27−30
−196%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+233%
|
18−20
−233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 59
+228%
|
18−20
−228%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+210%
|
21−24
−210%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+195%
|
21−24
−195%
|
| Valorant | 148
+196%
|
50−55
−196%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+228%
|
18−20
−228%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 89
+197%
|
30−33
−197%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+194%
|
18−20
−194%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 62
+195%
|
21−24
−195%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 71
+196%
|
24−27
−196%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+196%
|
45−50
−196%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 72
+200%
|
24−27
−200%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+218%
|
40−45
−218%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+222%
|
9−10
−222%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+218%
|
50−55
−218%
|
| Valorant | 159
+218%
|
50−55
−218%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+194%
|
16−18
−194%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+207%
|
14−16
−207%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+225%
|
8−9
−225%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 44
+214%
|
14−16
−214%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Valorant | 90
+200%
|
30−33
−200%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 25
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 45
+221%
|
14−16
−221%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
This is how GTX 1650 Mobile and Moore Threads MTT S80 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 222% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 208% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 229% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.08 | 5.86 |
| Recency | 15 April 2020 | 11 November 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 255 Watt |
GTX 1650 Mobile has a 191% higher aggregate performance score, and 410% lower power consumption.
Moore Threads MTT S80, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Moore Threads MTT S80 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Moore Threads MTT S80 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
