GeForce GTX 1650 vs 8800M GTX

Place in the ranking	1057	272
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	37.80
Power efficiency	1.27	18.84
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	G92	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	1 November 2007 (17 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	96	896
Core clock speed	500 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.00	93.24
Floating-point processing power	0.24 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	48	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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	MXM-HE	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None
SLI options	+	-

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	51.2 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	No outputs	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.5
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	1.1	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. 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.

8800M GTX 1.20

GTX 1650 20.48
+1607%

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.

8800M GTX 462

GTX 1650 7875
+1605%

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.

8800M GTX 3422

GTX 1650 44694
+1206%

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	4−5 −1625%	69 +1625%
1440p	2−3 −1900%	40 +1900%
4K	1−2 −2200%	23 +2200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.16
1440p	no data	3.73
4K	no data	6.48

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −311%	35−40 +311%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1267%	40−45 +1267%
Elden Ring	0−1	65−70

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −6500%	66 +6500%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −311%	35−40 +311%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −467%	17 +467%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −1075%	94 +1075%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −1183%	77 +1183%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −7400%	75 +7400%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −311%	35−40 +311%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −367%	14 +367%
Dota 2	1−2 −8100%	82 +8100%
Elden Ring	0−1	65−70
Far Cry 5	10−11 −800%	90 +800%
Fortnite	5−6 −1540%	82 +1540%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −825%	74 +825%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 −7400%	75 +7400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −954%	130−140 +954%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −367%	28 +367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −829%	65−70 +829%
World of Tanks	24−27 −804%	230−240 +804%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −5400%	55 +5400%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −311%	35−40 +311%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −300%	12 +300%
Dota 2	1−2 −9100%	92 +9100%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −580%	65−70 +580%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −675%	62 +675%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −369%	61 +369%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −2357%	170−180 +2357%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	17
World of Tanks	6−7 −2217%	130−140 +2217%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −88.9%	16−18 +88.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −250%	7 +250%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −1020%	55−60 +1020%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −1300%	27−30 +1300%
Valorant	6−7 −567%	40 +567%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −93.3%	29 +93.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −93.3%	29 +93.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −1967%	60−65 +1967%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	12−14
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −93.3%	29 +93.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1700%	18 +1700%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3 +200%
Dota 2	14−16 −293%	59 +293%
Far Cry 5	0−1	24−27
Valorant	1−2 −2000%	21 +2000%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Metro Exodus	66 +0%	66 +0%
Valorant	85 +0%	85 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Metro Exodus	44 +0%	44 +0%
Valorant	46 +0%	46 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Valorant

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Elden Ring	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	38 +0%	38 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45 +0%	45 +0%
Metro Exodus	41 +0%	41 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Elden Ring	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Metro Exodus	12 +0%	12 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Fortnite	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	26 +0%	26 +0%

This is how 8800M GTX and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 1625% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 1900% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 2200% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 is 9100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 1650 is ahead in 41 test (71%)
there's a draw in 17 tests (29%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.20	20.48
Recency	1 November 2007	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	75 Watt

8800M GTX has 15.4% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 1606.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 441.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800M GTX in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 8800M GTX 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.