GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce4 420 Go
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce4 420 Go with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 outperforms GeForce4 420 Go by a whopping 188700% 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 | 1605 | 330 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 4 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 22.82 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 19.48 |
| Architecture | Celsius (1999−2005) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | NV17 A5 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 February 2002 (24 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 | 2 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 190 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 29 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 150 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 0.8 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 2 | 32 |
| TMUs | 4 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1024 KB |
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 | no data | 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 | DDR | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 200 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 3.2 GB/s | 128.0 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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 8.0 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 1.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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 | -0−1 | 61 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 38 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 24 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.44 |
| 1440p | no data | 3.92 |
| 4K | no data | 6.21 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 50−55 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 50−55 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−4400%
|
90
+4400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1186%
|
90
+1186%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1068%
|
292
+1068%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 50−55 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−2467%
|
230−240
+2467%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−1286%
|
97
+1286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−4050%
|
83
+4050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1129%
|
86
+1129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1320%
|
71
+1320%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−940%
|
260
+940%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−1214%
|
92
+1214%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65
+3150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−843%
|
66
+843%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−720%
|
41
+720%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−180%
|
70
+180%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−3800%
|
35−40
+3800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 0−1 | 160−170 |
1440p
Ultra
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−3000%
|
31
+3000%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−136%
|
33
+136%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−1975%
|
83
+1975%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−2500%
|
26
+2500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1000%
|
11
+1000%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 211
+0%
|
211
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 177
+0%
|
177
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 4400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 performs better in 20 tests (34%)
- there's a draw in 39 tests (66%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.01 | 18.88 |
| Recency | 6 February 2002 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 150 nm | 12 nm |
GTX 1650 has a 188700% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 17 years, a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1150% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce4 420 Go in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce4 420 Go is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 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.
