GeForce GTX 1650 vs 8800M GTX SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8800M GTX SLI with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 outperforms 8800M SLI by a whopping 895% 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 | 942 | 324 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 5 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 28.45 |
| Power efficiency | 1.12 | 19.22 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | NB8E-GTX | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 19 November 2007 (17 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (6 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
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 | 192 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | 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 | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | 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 | 10 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 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.
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.
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 | 6−7
−967%
| 64
+967%
|
| 1440p | 3−4
−1167%
| 38
+1167%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−1100%
| 24
+1100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.33 |
| 1440p | no data | 3.92 |
| 4K | no data | 6.21 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−3533%
|
100−110
+3533%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−925%
|
40−45
+925%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−517%
|
35−40
+517%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1120%
|
61
+1120%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−3533%
|
100−110
+3533%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−925%
|
40−45
+925%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1280%
|
69
+1280%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−2538%
|
211
+2538%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−800%
|
90
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−1725%
|
73
+1725%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−517%
|
35−40
+517%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−718%
|
90
+718%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−668%
|
292
+668%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−960%
|
53
+960%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−3533%
|
100−110
+3533%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−492%
|
230−240
+492%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−925%
|
40−45
+925%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−362%
|
97
+362%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1160%
|
63
+1160%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−963%
|
85
+963%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−730%
|
83
+730%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−1450%
|
62
+1450%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−2600%
|
81
+2600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−517%
|
35−40
+517%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1067%
|
35
+1067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−682%
|
86
+682%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−788%
|
71
+788%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−584%
|
260
+584%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−920%
|
51
+920%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−925%
|
40−45
+925%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−338%
|
92
+338%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1080%
|
59
+1080%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−550%
|
65
+550%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−517%
|
35−40
+517%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−500%
|
66
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−413%
|
41
+413%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−84.2%
|
70
+84.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−663%
|
61
+663%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−680%
|
35−40
+680%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−969%
|
130−140
+969%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−795%
|
170−180
+795%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−1262%
|
177
+1262%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1233%
|
40
+1233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−820%
|
46
+820%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−933%
|
31
+933%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1300%
|
42
+1300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−120%
|
33
+120%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−822%
|
83
+822%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−1375%
|
59
+1375%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 19 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 30 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−767%
|
26
+767%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−267%
|
11
+267%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+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%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how 8800M GTX SLI and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 967% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 1167% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 1100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 1650 is 3533% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 performs better in 53 tests (83%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (17%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.87 | 18.60 |
| Recency | 19 November 2007 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 1650 has a 894.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 441.7% more advanced lithography process, and 73.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800M GTX SLI in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 8800M GTX SLI 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.
