GRID K2 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile with GRID K2, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 Mobile outperforms GRID K2 by a whopping 160% 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 | 343 | 597 |
| Place by popularity | 60 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.06 |
| Power efficiency | 25.91 | 2.21 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 April 2020 (5 years ago) | 11 May 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $5,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1024 | 1536 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 1380 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 99.84 | 95.36 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.195 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 ×2 |
| TMUs | 64 | 128 ×2 |
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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s ×2 |
| 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.140 | 1.2.175 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 3.0 |
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.
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.
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 | 58
+176%
| 21−24
−176%
|
| 1440p | 37
+164%
| 14−16
−164%
|
| 4K | 23
+188%
| 8−9
−188%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 247.57 |
| 1440p | no data | 371.36 |
| 4K | no data | 649.88 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 131
+162%
|
50−55
−162%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+189%
|
18−20
−189%
|
| God of War | 47
+161%
|
18−20
−161%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 113
+183%
|
40−45
−183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+169%
|
35−40
−169%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82
+173%
|
30−33
−173%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 68
+183%
|
24−27
−183%
|
| God of War | 38
+171%
|
14−16
−171%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+171%
|
24−27
−171%
|
| Valorant | 164
+173%
|
60−65
−173%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 67
+179%
|
24−27
−179%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130
+189%
|
45−50
−189%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 96
+174%
|
35−40
−174%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 54
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+169%
|
35−40
−169%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
+167%
|
30−33
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
| God of War | 32
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 59
+181%
|
21−24
−181%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+171%
|
24−27
−171%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+195%
|
21−24
−195%
|
| Valorant | 148
+169%
|
55−60
−169%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+181%
|
21−24
−181%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 89
+197%
|
30−33
−197%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+194%
|
18−20
−194%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 62
+195%
|
21−24
−195%
|
| God of War | 20
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 71
+163%
|
27−30
−163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+170%
|
50−55
−170%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 72
+167%
|
27−30
−167%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+182%
|
45−50
−182%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+173%
|
60−65
−173%
|
| Valorant | 159
+165%
|
60−65
−165%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+161%
|
18−20
−161%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+169%
|
16−18
−169%
|
| God of War | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 44
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Valorant | 90
+200%
|
30−33
−200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 25
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 45
+181%
|
16−18
−181%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| God of War | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
This is how GTX 1650 Mobile and GRID K2 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 176% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 164% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 188% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.98 | 6.53 |
| Recency | 15 April 2020 | 11 May 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 225 Watt |
GTX 1650 Mobile has a 160% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 350% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K2 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while GRID K2 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
