GeForce GT 520M vs GTX 1650 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile and GeForce GT 520M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1650 Mobile outperforms GT 520M by a whopping 2401% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 303 | 1164 |
| Place by popularity | 68 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 25.52 | 4.25 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 April 2020 (4 years ago) | 5 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $59.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1380 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 99.84 | 4.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.195 TFLOPS | 0.1152 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 64 | 8 |
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 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 12.8 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 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.140 | N/A |
| CUDA | 7.5 | + |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 200−210
+2400%
| 8
−2400%
|
| Full HD | 59
+392%
| 12
−392%
|
| 1200p | 170−180
+2329%
| 7
−2329%
|
| 1440p | 36
+3500%
| 1−2
−3500%
|
| 4K | 23 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.00 |
| 1440p | no data | 59.99 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 38
+443%
|
7−8
−443%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+1633%
|
3−4
−1633%
|
| Elden Ring | 47 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+3200%
|
2−3
−3200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 32
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 79
+1029%
|
7−8
−1029%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+2650%
|
2−3
−2650%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 71
+1320%
|
5−6
−1320%
|
| Valorant | 83
+2667%
|
3−4
−2667%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 72
+3500%
|
2−3
−3500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 28
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Dota 2 | 72
+3500%
|
2−3
−3500%
|
| Elden Ring | 65 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 62
+675%
|
8−9
−675%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+4850%
|
2−3
−4850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 64
+814%
|
7−8
−814%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 59
+2850%
|
2−3
−2850%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 165
+1550%
|
10−11
−1550%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+867%
|
6−7
−867%
|
| Valorant | 47
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
| World of Tanks | 130
+584%
|
18−20
−584%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 56
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 23
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Dota 2 | 89
+2867%
|
3−4
−2867%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 73
+813%
|
8−9
−813%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55
+686%
|
7−8
−686%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+1170%
|
10−11
−1170%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+4075%
|
4−5
−4075%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 120−130
+4133%
|
3−4
−4133%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 37
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+1100%
|
4−5
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 39
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+840%
|
5−6
−840%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Elden Ring | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 47
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 45
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 23 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
This is how GTX 1650 Mobile and GT 520M compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 2400% faster in 900p
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 392% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 2329% faster in 1200p
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 3500% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 Mobile is 4850% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 Mobile is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.51 | 0.74 |
| Recency | 15 April 2020 | 5 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 12 Watt |
GTX 1650 Mobile has a 2401.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
GT 520M, on the other hand, has 316.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 520M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
