Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) vs GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q and Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q
2020
4 GB GDDR6, 50 Watt
16.77
+61.1%

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q outperforms Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) by an impressive 61% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking328439
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency23.14no data
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Xe LPG (2023)
GPU code nameTU117Meteor Lake iGPU
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date2 April 2020 (4 years ago)14 December 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 cores10244
Core clock speed1035 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1200 MHz1950 MHz
Number of transistors4,700 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology12 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Wattno data
Texture fill rate76.80no data
Floating-point processing power2.458 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs64no data

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 x16no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR6no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1250 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/sno data
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 outputsno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12_2
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.2.140-
CUDA7.5-

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.

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 16.77
+61.1%
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 10.41

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 Ti Max-Q 11538
+70.3%
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 6776

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 Ti Max-Q 8564
+61.7%
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 5295

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 Ti Max-Q 47657
+60.1%
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 29765

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 Ti Max-Q 421834
+42.9%
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 295187

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 3098
+60.5%
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 1930

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 HD56
+124%
25
−124%
1440p36
+71.4%
21−24
−71.4%
4K24
+71.4%
14−16
−71.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+131%
13
−131%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+83.3%
18−20
−83.3%
Elden Ring 50−55
+73.3%
30−33
−73.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+58.8%
30−35
−58.8%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+173%
11
−173%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
+70%
10−11
−70%
Forza Horizon 4 77
+54%
50
−54%
Metro Exodus 56
+86.7%
30−33
−86.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 63
+133%
27−30
−133%
Valorant 91
+133%
35−40
−133%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+58.8%
30−35
−58.8%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+131%
13
−131%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Dota 2 82
+447%
15
−447%
Elden Ring 50−55
+73.3%
30−33
−73.3%
Far Cry 5 67
+179%
24
−179%
Fortnite 90−95
+50.8%
60−65
−50.8%
Forza Horizon 4 62
+59%
39
−59%
Grand Theft Auto V 67
+347%
15
−347%
Metro Exodus 38
+35.7%
27−30
−35.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+47.5%
80−85
−47.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+48.1%
27−30
−48.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+67.7%
30−35
−67.7%
Valorant 42
+7.7%
35−40
−7.7%
World of Tanks 200−210
+40.3%
140−150
−40.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+58.8%
30−35
−58.8%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+57.9%
18−20
−57.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Dota 2 106
+63.1%
65−70
−63.1%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+40.5%
40−45
−40.5%
Forza Horizon 4 54
+80%
30
−80%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+47.5%
80−85
−47.5%
Valorant 65−70
+71.8%
35−40
−71.8%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 26
+100%
12−14
−100%
Elden Ring 27−30
+80%
14−16
−80%
Grand Theft Auto V 26
+85.7%
14−16
−85.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+218%
45−50
−218%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
World of Tanks 110−120
+54.7%
75−80
−54.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+70%
20−22
−70%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+82.6%
21−24
−82.6%
Forza Horizon 4 35
+52.2%
21−24
−52.2%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+76.2%
21−24
−76.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+69.2%
12−14
−69.2%
Valorant 40−45
+61.5%
24−27
−61.5%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Dota 2 25
+19%
21−24
−19%
Elden Ring 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 25
+25%
20−22
−25%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+66.7%
30−33
−66.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 25
+25%
20−22
−25%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Dota 2 52
+73.3%
30−33
−73.3%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+61.5%
12−14
−61.5%
Fortnite 18−20
+72.7%
10−12
−72.7%
Forza Horizon 4 21
+61.5%
12−14
−61.5%
Valorant 18−20
+90%
10−11
−90%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Fortnite 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

This is how GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q and Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 124% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 71% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 71% faster in 4K

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

  • in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 447% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 52 tests (91%)
  • there's a draw in 5 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.77 10.41
Recency 2 April 2020 14 December 2023
Chip lithography 12 nm 5 nm

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q has a 61.1% higher aggregate performance score.

Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) in performance tests.


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

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 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q
Intel Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc)
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc)

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.


3.8 214 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 7 votes

Rate Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.