GeForce GTX 1650 vs 820M
Aggregate performance score
GTX 1650 outperforms 820M by a whopping 1480% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 996 | 253 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 2 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.03 | 18.97 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | N15V-GM | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2014 (10 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
| Current price | $490 | $185 (1.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1650 has 63133% better value for money than GeForce 820M.
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 | 96 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point performance | 240.0 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce 820M 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 | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 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 | no data | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
| GameWorks | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 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 820M by 1480% 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 820M by 1482% 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 820M by 977% 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 820M by 775% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GTX 1650 outperforms 820M by 926% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GTX 1650 outperforms 820M by 732% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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 820M by 1335% 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 | 15
−360%
| 69
+360%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−1750%
| 37
+1750%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−2300%
| 24
+2300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−1633%
|
52
+1633%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−967%
|
64
+967%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1700%
|
90
+1700%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−1800%
|
76
+1800%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−785%
|
115
+785%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−3750%
|
77
+3750%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−840%
|
94
+840%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−2000%
|
63
+2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1400%
|
90
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1560%
|
83
+1560%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−850%
|
38
+850%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−577%
|
88
+577%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−3050%
|
63
+3050%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−490%
|
59
+490%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1750%
|
74
+1750%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−167%
|
8
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−550%
|
39
+550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1200%
|
65
+1200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−362%
|
60
+362%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−950%
|
42
+950%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−2600%
|
54
+2600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−4100%
|
42
+4100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−4900%
|
50
+4900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−700%
|
32
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1850%
|
39
+1850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−4500%
|
46
+4500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−760%
|
43
+760%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2200%
|
21−24
+2200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1017%
|
67
+1017%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−2200%
|
21−24
+2200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 13 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 5 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−2200%
|
23
+2200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−425%
|
21
+425%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−467%
|
17
+467%
|
This is how GeForce 820M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 360% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 1750% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 2300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 4900% faster than the GeForce 820M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1650 surpassed GeForce 820M in all 38 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.29 | 20.38 |
| Recency | 7 January 2014 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 820M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 820M 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.
