Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
980M vs 1650 Mobile
Price now
301$
Games supported
83%
- Interface PCIe 3.0 x16
- Core clock speed 1380
- Max video memory 4 GB
- Memory type GDDR5, GDDR6
- Memory clock speed 12000
- Maximum resolution
- Interface MXM-B (3.0)
- Core clock speed 1038 + Boost
- Max video memory 8 GB
- Memory type GDDR5
- Memory clock speed 2500 MHz
- Maximum resolution
Price now
583$
Games supported
83%
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance rating | 238 | 232 |
| Value for money | 41.55 | 8.00 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2021) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | N18P-G0, N18P-G61 | GM204 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (3 years old) | 7 October 2014 (8 years old) |
| Current price | $301 | $583 |
Value for money
Technical specs
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 | 1536 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1380 MHz | 1038 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | 1127 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 5,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 50 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | 99.84 | 51.84 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 3,462 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile and GeForce GTX 980M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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 | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | no data | + |
Memory
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5, GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 160 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | No outputs |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | + |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| G-SYNC support | no data | + |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | no data | + |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | no data | + |
| GPU Boost | no data | 2.0 |
| GameWorks | no data | + |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
| BatteryBoost | no data | + |
| Ansel | no data | + |
API support
APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.140 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | + |
Benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.
Overall score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. 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
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
- 3DMark Fire Strike Score
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- 3DMark Ice Storm GPU
- Unigine Heaven 3.0
Passmark
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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: 24%
GeForce GTX 980M outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile by 3% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
GeForce GTX 980M outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile by 2% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile outperforms GeForce GTX 980M by 5% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
GeForce GTX 980M outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile by 14% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Score
Benchmark coverage: 13%
GeForce GTX 980M outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile by 3% in 3DMark Fire Strike Score.
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 seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
GeForce GTX 980M outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile by 4% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile outperforms GeForce GTX 980M by 11% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
GeForce GTX 980M outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile by 10% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.
Mining hashrates
Cryptocurrency mining performance of GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile and GeForce GTX 980M. Usually measured in megahashes per second.
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | no data | 383 Mh/s |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | no data | 173 |
| Full HD | 65
−10.8%
| 72
+10.8%
|
| 1440p | 37
+2.8%
| 36
−2.8%
|
| 4K | 23
−17.4%
| 27
+17.4%
|
Popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+62.5%
|
30−35
−62.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 55
+7.8%
|
51
−7.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 42
+31.3%
|
30−35
−31.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60
−36.7%
|
82
+36.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 63
+28.6%
|
45−50
−28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+28.1%
|
30−35
−28.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+3.4%
|
58
−3.4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55
−9.1%
|
60
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82
+10.8%
|
74
−10.8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 69
+23.2%
|
55−60
−23.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 53
+29.3%
|
40−45
−29.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 48
+50%
|
30−35
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 58
+13.7%
|
51
−13.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 48
+33.3%
|
35−40
−33.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 48
+9.1%
|
44
−9.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 24
−33.3%
|
30−35
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60
−13.3%
|
68
+13.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 49
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 54
+1.9%
|
53
−1.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55
−1.8%
|
56
+1.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
+17.6%
|
68
−17.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 57
+1.8%
|
55−60
−1.8%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 39
−5.1%
|
40−45
+5.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+6.5%
|
31
−6.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
−18.5%
|
30−35
+18.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 48
+14.3%
|
42
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+1.6%
|
61
−1.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 42
+16.7%
|
35−40
−16.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30
+15.4%
|
26
−15.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8
−300%
|
30−35
+300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 59
−3.4%
|
61
+3.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
−6.7%
|
30−35
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+6%
|
50
−6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 62
+31.9%
|
47
−31.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+9.1%
|
33
−9.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 17
−112%
|
35−40
+112%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 38
+35.7%
|
27−30
−35.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 37
+19.4%
|
30−35
−19.4%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24
−8.3%
|
24−27
+8.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+5.3%
|
19
−5.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30
+20%
|
25
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 22
+10%
|
20
−10%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+4.4%
|
45
−4.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+2.9%
|
34
−2.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 39
+2.6%
|
38
−2.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−5.4%
|
39
+5.4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 19
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 15
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 15
+25%
|
12
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
−4.8%
|
22
+4.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 25
+8.7%
|
23
−8.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+12.5%
|
16
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 19
−5.3%
|
20
+5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−8.3%
|
26
+8.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance rating | 17.94 | 18.45 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 7 October 2014 |
| Memory bus width | 128 | 256 |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 | 160 |
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 1536 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
Technical City couldn't decide between
and
The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Competitors of GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile by AMD
The nearest GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile's AMD equivalent is Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire, which is faster by 3% and higher by 3 positions in our performance rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile:
Competitors of GeForce GTX 980M by AMD
We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GTX 980M from AMD is Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire, which is nearly equal in speed and is lower by 3 positions in our rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GTX 980M:
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
