RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1650 Max-Q
2019
4 GB GDDR5, 30 Watt
15.78

RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms GTX 1650 Max-Q by a whopping 181% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking34278
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data88.57
Power efficiency36.9444.44
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameTU117AD107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)12 February 2024 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores10242816
Core clock speed930 MHz1620 MHz
Boost clock speed1125 MHz2130 MHz
Number of transistors4,700 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate72.00187.4
Floating-point processing power2.304 TFLOPS12 TFLOPS
ROPs3248
TMUs6488
Tensor Coresno data88
Ray Tracing Coresno data22

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1751 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth112.1 GB/s256.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1401.3
CUDA7.58.9
DLSS-+

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 15.78
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 44.35
+181%

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 6210
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 17453
+181%

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 HD60
−167%
160−170
+167%
1440p30
−167%
80−85
+167%
4K18
−178%
50−55
+178%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.06
1440pno data8.11
4Kno data12.98

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
−156%
100−105
+156%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−178%
75−80
+178%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−166%
85−90
+166%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
−156%
100−105
+156%
Battlefield 5 64
−166%
170−180
+166%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−178%
75−80
+178%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−166%
85−90
+166%
Far Cry 5 38
−163%
100−105
+163%
Fortnite 138
−154%
350−400
+154%
Forza Horizon 4 74
−170%
200−210
+170%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
−168%
110−120
+168%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85
−171%
230−240
+171%
Valorant 120−130
−144%
300−310
+144%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
−156%
100−105
+156%
Battlefield 5 54
−178%
150−160
+178%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−178%
75−80
+178%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 167
−169%
450−500
+169%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−166%
85−90
+166%
Dota 2 94
−177%
260−270
+177%
Far Cry 5 35
−171%
95−100
+171%
Fortnite 80
−175%
220−230
+175%
Forza Horizon 4 69
−175%
190−200
+175%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
−168%
110−120
+168%
Grand Theft Auto V 56
−168%
150−160
+168%
Metro Exodus 28
−168%
75−80
+168%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 71
−168%
190−200
+168%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 53
−164%
140−150
+164%
Valorant 120−130
−144%
300−310
+144%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 49
−165%
130−140
+165%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−178%
75−80
+178%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−166%
85−90
+166%
Dota 2 88
−173%
240−250
+173%
Far Cry 5 33
−173%
90−95
+173%
Forza Horizon 4 55
−173%
150−160
+173%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
−168%
110−120
+168%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 53
−164%
140−150
+164%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
−167%
80−85
+167%
Valorant 120−130
−144%
300−310
+144%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 59
−171%
160−170
+171%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
−168%
300−310
+168%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
−180%
70−75
+180%
Metro Exodus 16
−150%
40−45
+150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
−168%
400−450
+168%
Valorant 150−160
−160%
400−450
+160%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 36
−178%
100−105
+178%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
−178%
50−55
+178%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−150%
35−40
+150%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−173%
90−95
+173%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−170%
100−105
+170%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
−178%
75−80
+178%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−171%
65−70
+171%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 36
−178%
100−105
+178%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
−150%
30−33
+150%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−157%
18−20
+157%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
−168%
75−80
+168%
Metro Exodus 10
−170%
27−30
+170%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
−178%
50−55
+178%
Valorant 80−85
−177%
230−240
+177%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 19
−163%
50−55
+163%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−157%
18−20
+157%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−167%
16−18
+167%
Dota 2 50−55
−178%
150−160
+178%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−150%
40−45
+150%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−169%
70−75
+169%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
−169%
35−40
+169%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 17
−165%
45−50
+165%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 11
−173%
30−33
+173%

This is how GTX 1650 Max-Q and RTX 2000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:

  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 167% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 167% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 178% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.78 44.35
Recency 23 April 2019 12 February 2024
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 70 Watt

GTX 1650 Max-Q has 133.3% lower power consumption.

RTX 2000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 181.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is a notebook card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation
RTX 2000 Ada Generation

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 670 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 29 votes

Rate RTX 2000 Ada Generation on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q or RTX 2000 Ada Generation, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.