GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile vs GTX 1650 Max-Q

Place in the ranking	334	27
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	37.20	41.23
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code name	TU117	AD104
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)	3 January 2023 (1 year ago)

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	1024	7424
Core clock speed	930 MHz	1290 MHz
Boost clock speed	1125 MHz	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	4,700 million	35,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	110 Watt
Texture fill rate	72.00	386.3
Floating-point processing power	2.304 TFLOPS	24.72 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	80
TMUs	64	232
Tensor Cores	no data	232
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	58

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	medium sized	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	12 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	1751 MHz	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112.1 GB/s	432.0 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

Portable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.5	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.140	1.3
CUDA	7.5	8.9

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 16.01

RTX 4080 Mobile 65.07
+306%

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 6176

RTX 4080 Mobile 25097
+306%

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 11083

RTX 4080 Mobile 56772
+412%

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 30957

RTX 4080 Mobile 111294
+260%

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 7779

RTX 4080 Mobile 41431
+433%

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 45244

RTX 4080 Mobile 131005
+190%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 373879

RTX 4080 Mobile 703825
+88.2%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GTX 1650 Max-Q 3016

RTX 4080 Mobile 18441
+511%

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	56 −184%	159 +184%
1440p	30 −243%	103 +243%
4K	17 −329%	73 +329%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

24−27

−496%

149
+496%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	49 −127%	110−120 +127%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 −258%	90−95 +258%
Battlefield 5	63 −168%	160−170 +168%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	42 −145%	100−110 +145%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −472%	143 +472%
Far Cry 5	48 −119%	100−110 +119%
Far Cry New Dawn	59 −117%	120−130 +117%
Forza Horizon 4	195 −11.8%	210−220 +11.8%
Hitman 3	30−35 −261%	110−120 +261%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 −158%	200−210 +158%
Metro Exodus	71 −110%	140−150 +110%
Red Dead Redemption 2	54 −104%	110−120 +104%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 −300%	200−210 +300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 −77.8%	140−150 +77.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	69 −60.9%	110−120 +60.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 −258%	90−95 +258%
Battlefield 5	55 −207%	160−170 +207%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40 −158%	100−110 +158%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −396%	124 +396%
Far Cry 5	38 −176%	100−110 +176%
Far Cry New Dawn	41 −212%	120−130 +212%
Forza Horizon 4	179 −21.8%	210−220 +21.8%
Hitman 3	30−35 −261%	110−120 +261%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 −158%	200−210 +158%
Metro Exodus	58 −157%	140−150 +157%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45 −144%	110−120 +144%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 −575%	351 +575%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 −189%	110−120 +189%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 −77.8%	140−150 +77.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20 −455%	110−120 +455%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 −354%	118 +354%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	25 −312%	100−110 +312%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −384%	121 +384%
Far Cry 5	26 −304%	100−110 +304%
Forza Horizon 4	55 −296%	210−220 +296%
Hitman 3	30−35 −261%	110−120 +261%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 −158%	200−210 +158%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 −512%	318 +512%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30 −473%	172 +473%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 −35.8%	110 +35.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

−162%

110−120
+162%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	33 −233%	110−120 +233%
Far Cry New Dawn	26 −215%	80−85 +215%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	17 −253%	60−65 +253%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 −615%	93 +615%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 −271%	60−65 +271%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −811%	82 +811%
Far Cry 5	19 −226%	60−65 +226%
Forza Horizon 4	124 −113%	260−270 +113%
Hitman 3	18−20 −289%	70−75 +289%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −273%	120−130 +273%
Metro Exodus	32 −197%	95−100 +197%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 −690%	237 +690%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −724%	140 +724%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 −128%	220−230 +128%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

−250%

90−95
+250%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	11 −418%	55−60 +418%
Far Cry New Dawn	13 −277%	45−50 +277%
Hitman 3	12−14 −267%	40−45 +267%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 −160%	211 +160%
Metro Exodus	22 −241%	75−80 +241%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18 −550%	117 +550%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8 −400%	40−45 +400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 −588%	55 +588%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −363%	35−40 +363%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1200%	39 +1200%
Far Cry 5	9 −278%	30−35 +278%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −259%	75−80 +259%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −656%	121 +656%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 −833%	56 +833%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

−292%

50−55
+292%

This is how GTX 1650 Max-Q and RTX 4080 Mobile compete in popular games:

RTX 4080 Mobile is 184% faster in 1080p
RTX 4080 Mobile is 243% faster in 1440p
RTX 4080 Mobile is 329% faster in 4K

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

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 4080 Mobile is 1200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, RTX 4080 Mobile surpassed GTX 1650 Max-Q in all 72 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	16.01	65.07
Recency	23 April 2019	3 January 2023
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	12 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	110 Watt

GTX 1650 Max-Q has 266.7% lower power consumption.

RTX 4080 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 306.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 200% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.