GeForce GTX 1650 vs G210M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce G210M with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
1650 outperforms G210M by a whopping 6038% 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 | 1367 | 318 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 5 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 28.92 |
| Power efficiency | 1.67 | 19.12 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 June 2009 (16 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 | 16 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 625 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 | 5.000 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.048 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 72 | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 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).
| 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 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 500 (DDR2), Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 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 | Dual Link DVIDisplayPortHDMISingle Link DVIVGA | 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 support
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 16
−300%
| 64
+300%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 38 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 24 |
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
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4000%
|
40−45
+4000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−640%
|
35−40
+640%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4000%
|
40−45
+4000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2150%
|
90
+2150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−640%
|
35−40
+640%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1186%
|
90
+1186%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1023%
|
292
+1023%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14
−1550%
|
230−240
+1550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4000%
|
40−45
+4000%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−978%
|
97
+978%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1975%
|
83
+1975%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−640%
|
35−40
+640%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 35 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1129%
|
86
+1129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1320%
|
71
+1320%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−900%
|
260
+900%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4000%
|
40−45
+4000%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−922%
|
92
+922%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1525%
|
65
+1525%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−640%
|
35−40
+640%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−843%
|
66
+843%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−720%
|
41
+720%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−169%
|
70
+169%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1850%
|
35−40
+1850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−5600%
|
170−180
+5600%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−4500%
|
46
+4500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 21−24 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 31 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 42 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−120%
|
33
+120%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−4050%
|
83
+4050%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−2500%
|
26
+2500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−450%
|
11
+450%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 211
+0%
|
211
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 177
+0%
|
177
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+0%
|
40
+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%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how GeForce G210M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 300% 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 5600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 performs better in 29 tests (47%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (53%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.29 | 17.80 |
| Recency | 15 June 2009 | 23 April 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 75 Watt |
GeForce G210M has 435.7% lower power consumption.
GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 6037.9% 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 G210M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce G210M 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.
