GeForce GT 820M vs GTX 1650 Mobile

Place in performance ranking	282	944
Place by popularity	63	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	40.33	0.02
Architecture	Turing (2018−2021)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	N18P-G0, N18P-G61	GF117
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)	27 November 2013 (10 years ago)
Current price	$301	$310

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 Mobile has 201550% better value for money than GT 820M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1024	96
Core clock speed	1380 MHz	775 MHz
Boost clock speed	1560 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,700 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	99.84	12.40
Floating-point performance	no data	297.6 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile and GeForce GT 820M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16

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	GDDR5, GDDR6	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	12000 MHz	1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 GB/s	14.4 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 Connectors

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.140	N/A
CUDA	7.5	2.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 18.43
+1154%

GT 820M 1.47

GTX 1650 Mobile outperforms GT 820M by 1154% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 1650 Mobile 7116
+1155%

GT 820M 567

GTX 1650 Mobile outperforms GT 820M by 1155% in Passmark.

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	57 +1325%	4−5 −1325%
1440p	37 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
4K	23 +2200%	1−2 −2200%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

650−700
+1150%

−1150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	650−700 +1082%	55 −1082%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	500−550 +1090%	42 −1090%
Battlefield 5	1000−1050 +1135%	81 −1135%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	600−650 +1076%	51 −1076%
Cyberpunk 2077	500−550 +1120%	41 −1120%
Far Cry 5	800−850 +1112%	66 −1112%
Far Cry New Dawn	950−1000 +1103%	79 −1103%
Forza Horizon 4	1000−1050 +1120%	82 −1120%
Hitman 3	550−600 +1070%	47 −1070%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1300−1350 +1150%	104 −1150%
Metro Exodus	1000−1050 +1120%	82 −1120%
Red Dead Redemption 2	850−900 +1097%	71 −1097%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	950−1000 +1103%	79 −1103%
Watch Dogs: Legion	600−650 +1150%	48 −1150%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	600−650 +1150%	48 −1150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	300−310 +1150%	24 −1150%
Battlefield 5	850−900 +1114%	70 −1114%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	550−600 +1070%	47 −1070%
Cyberpunk 2077	400−450 +1150%	32 −1150%
Far Cry 5	650−700 +1126%	53 −1126%
Far Cry New Dawn	650−700 +1104%	54 −1104%
Forza Horizon 4	1850−1900 +1150%	148 −1150%
Hitman 3	450−500 +1054%	39 −1054%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1850−1900 +1150%	148 −1150%
Metro Exodus	750−800 +1130%	61 −1130%
Red Dead Redemption 2	750−800 +1130%	61 −1130%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	800−850 +1150%	64 −1150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	750−800 +1110%	62 −1110%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1750−1800 +1141%	141 −1141%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	350−400 +1067%	30 −1067%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	100−105 +1150%	8 −1150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	400−450 +1076%	34 −1076%
Cyberpunk 2077	350−400 +1067%	30 −1067%
Far Cry 5	500−550 +1150%	40 −1150%
Forza Horizon 4	750−800 +1110%	62 −1110%
Horizon Zero Dawn	700−750 +1128%	57 −1128%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	650−700 +1082%	55 −1082%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	450−500 +1150%	36 −1150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	210−220 +1135%	17 −1135%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

650−700
+1150%

−1150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	500−550 +1063%	43 −1063%
Far Cry New Dawn	600−650 +1150%	48 −1150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	270−280 +1127%	22 −1127%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	200−210 +1150%	16−18 −1150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	300−310 +1054%	26 −1054%
Cyberpunk 2077	180−190 +1100%	15 −1100%
Far Cry 5	400−450 +1043%	35 −1043%
Forza Horizon 4	450−500 +1150%	35−40 −1150%
Hitman 3	300−310 +1054%	26 −1054%
Horizon Zero Dawn	550−600 +1150%	44 −1150%
Metro Exodus	450−500 +1054%	39 −1054%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	450−500 +1116%	35−40 −1116%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	260−270 +1138%	21−24 −1138%
Watch Dogs: Legion	150−160 +1150%	12 −1150%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

400−450
+1112%

−1112%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	260−270 +1138%	21 −1138%
Far Cry New Dawn	210−220 +1135%	17 −1135%
Hitman 3	170−180 +1114%	14 −1114%
Horizon Zero Dawn	250−260 +1150%	20−22 −1150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	180−190 +1100%	15 −1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	260−270 +1138%	21 −1138%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	150−160 +1150%	12 −1150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	110−120 +1122%	9−10 −1122%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	120−130 +1100%	10−11 −1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +1100%	5 −1100%
Far Cry 5	150−160 +1150%	12 −1150%
Forza Horizon 4	300−310 +1100%	24−27 −1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	280−290 +1117%	23 −1117%
Metro Exodus	230−240 +1111%	19 −1111%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +1114%	7−8 −1114%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

210−220
+1135%

−1135%

This is how GTX 1650 Mobile and GT 820M compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 Mobile is 1325% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Mobile is 1750% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Mobile is 2200% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.43	1.47
Recency	23 April 2019	27 November 2013
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	15 Watt