GeForce FX 5700 vs GTX 1650 Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile with GeForce FX 5700, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1650 Mobile
2020
4 GB GDDR6, 50 Watt
18.47
+18370%

GTX 1650 Mobile outperforms FX 5700 by a whopping 18370% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3001448
Place by popularity68not in top-100
Power efficiency25.350.27
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code nameTU117NV36
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date15 April 2020 (4 years ago)23 October 2003 (21 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 cores1024no data
Core clock speed1380 MHz425 MHz
Boost clock speed1560 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,700 million82 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate99.841.700
Floating-point processing power3.195 TFLOPSno data
ROPs324
TMUs644

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 x16AGP 8x
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR6DDR
Maximum RAM amount4 GB128 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz250 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/s16 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)9.0a
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.61.5 (2.1)
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.2.140N/A
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 Mobile 18.47
+18370%
FX 5700 0.10

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 Mobile 7116
+17690%
FX 5700 40

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 HD58-0−1
1440p37-0−1
4K20-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 52 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 55 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 42 0−1
Battlefield 5 81 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 51 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 41 0−1
Far Cry 5 66 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 79 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 166 0−1
Hitman 3 47 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 164 0−1
Metro Exodus 82 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 71 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 117 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 146 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 80 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24 0−1
Battlefield 5 70 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 47 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 32 0−1
Far Cry 5 53 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 54 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 148 0−1
Hitman 3 42 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 148 0−1
Metro Exodus 68 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 55 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 64 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 141 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 34 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 30 0−1
Far Cry 5 40 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 62 0−1
Hitman 3 37 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 57 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 17 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 52 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 43 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 34 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 22 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 15 0−1
Far Cry 5 25 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 99 0−1
Hitman 3 26 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 44 0−1
Metro Exodus 39 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 115 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 33 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 17 0−1
Hitman 3 14 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 45 0−1
Metro Exodus 26 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5 0−1
Far Cry 5 12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 24−27 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 20−22 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 17 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.47 0.10
Recency 15 April 2020 23 October 2003
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 128 MB
Chip lithography 12 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 25 Watt

GTX 1650 Mobile has a 18370% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 983.3% more advanced lithography process.

FX 5700, on the other hand, has 100% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5700 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is a notebook card while GeForce FX 5700 is a desktop one.


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 Mobile
GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700
GeForce FX 5700

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4 3312 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 71 vote

Rate GeForce FX 5700 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.