GeForce GTX 1650 vs 305M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 305M with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 outperforms 305M by a whopping 5219% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1272 | 279 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 37.19 |
| Power efficiency | 1.90 | 18.83 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 16 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 525 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.200 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0368 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 55 | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 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).
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | Up to 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 700 (DDR3), Up to 700 (GDDR3) MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 11.2 GB/s | 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 | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 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.
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 | 1−2
−6700%
| 68
+6700%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 40 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 23 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.19 |
| 1440p | no data | 3.73 |
| 4K | no data | 6.48 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−467%
|
17
+467%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2250%
|
94
+2250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−1825%
|
77
+1825%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14
+367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1314%
|
99
+1314%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1750%
|
74
+1750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1857%
|
130−140
+1857%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−600%
|
28
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1200%
|
65−70
+1200%
|
| World of Tanks | 14−16
−1579%
|
230−240
+1579%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−300%
|
12
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−857%
|
65−70
+857%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1450%
|
62
+1450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−771%
|
61
+771%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−8500%
|
170−180
+8500%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1300%
|
55−60
+1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−625%
|
27−30
+625%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−700%
|
40
+700%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−120%
|
33
+120%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−93.3%
|
29
+93.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−6100%
|
60−65
+6100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−93.3%
|
29
+93.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 18 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−293%
|
59
+293%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−2000%
|
21
+2000%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
+0%
|
40
+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%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how GeForce 305M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 6700% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 8500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 31 test (49%)
- there's a draw in 32 tests (51%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.37 | 19.68 |
| Recency | 10 January 2010 | 23 April 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 75 Watt |
GeForce 305M has 435.7% lower power consumption.
GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 5218.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 305M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 305M is a notebook 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.
