GeForce GTX 1650 vs 610M
Aggregate performance score
GTX 1650 outperforms 610M by a whopping 2617% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1118 | 255 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.13 | 18.97 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | N13M-GE | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 December 2011 (12 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
| Current price | $55 | $185 (1.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1650 has 14492% better value for money than GeForce 610M.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 48 | 896 |
| CUDA cores | 48 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 672 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | Up to 7.2 billion/sec | 93.24 |
| Floating-point performance | 129.02 gflops | no data |
| Video decoders | H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce 610M and GeForce GTX 1650 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Bus support | PCI Express 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 14.4 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
GTX 1650 outperforms 610M by 2617% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GTX 1650 outperforms 610M by 2608% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GTX 1650 outperforms 610M by 2589% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GTX 1650 outperforms 610M by 1922% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
GTX 1650 outperforms 610M by 2779% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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 | 2−3
−3350%
| 69
+3350%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−3600%
| 37
+3600%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 24 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−2500%
|
52
+2500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1180%
|
64
+1180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2900%
|
90
+2900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−2433%
|
76
+2433%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−858%
|
115
+858%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 77 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−944%
|
94
+944%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−3050%
|
63
+3050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1700%
|
90
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2667%
|
83
+2667%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−1167%
|
38
+1167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−633%
|
88
+633%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 63 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−556%
|
59
+556%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−2367%
|
74
+2367%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−300%
|
8
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−680%
|
39
+680%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65
+2067%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−400%
|
60
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1300%
|
42
+1300%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 54 |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 42 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 50 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−700%
|
32
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3800%
|
39
+3800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 46 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−975%
|
43
+975%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2200%
|
21−24
+2200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1240%
|
67
+1240%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−2200%
|
21−24
+2200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−2200%
|
23
+2200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−425%
|
21
+425%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−750%
|
17
+750%
|
This is how GeForce 610M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 3350% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 3600% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 is 3800% faster than the GeForce 610M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1650 surpassed GeForce 610M in all 32 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.75 | 20.38 |
| Recency | 6 December 2011 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 75 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 610M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 610M 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
