ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3541605
Place by popularity54not in top-100
Power efficiency26.21no data
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Rage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code nameTU117RS200
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 April 2020 (6 years ago)5 October 2002 (23 years 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 cores10242
Core clock speed1380 MHz183 MHz
Boost clock speed1560 MHz180 MHz
Number of transistors4,700 million30 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm180 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Wattno data
Texture fill rate99.840.37
Floating-point processing power3.195 TFLOPSno data
ROPs322
TMUs642
L1 Cache1 MBno data
L2 Cache1024 KBno data

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 4x
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 typeGDDR6System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1500 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)7.0
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.61.4
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.2.140N/A
CUDA7.5-

Synthetic benchmarks

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



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
+355700%
ATI IGP 340M 2
Samples: 4

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 HD58no data
1440p37no data
4K23no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 131 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 52 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 46 no data

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 60 no data
Counter-Strike 2 113 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 41 0−1
Far Cry 5 60 no data
Fortnite 90−95 no data
Forza Horizon 4 82
+4000%
2−3
−4000%
Forza Horizon 5 68 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+983%
6−7
−983%
Valorant 164
+613%
21−24
−613%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 60 no data
Counter-Strike 2 67 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130
+1344%
9−10
−1344%
Cyberpunk 2077 32 0−1
Dota 2 96
+1271%
7−8
−1271%
Far Cry 5 54 no data
Fortnite 90−95 no data
Forza Horizon 4 80
+3900%
2−3
−3900%
Forza Horizon 5 60 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 59 no data
Metro Exodus 33 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+983%
6−7
−983%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
+1450%
4−5
−1450%
Valorant 148
+543%
21−24
−543%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 59 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 30 0−1
Dota 2 89
+1171%
7−8
−1171%
Far Cry 5 53 no data
Forza Horizon 4 62
+3000%
2−3
−3000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 71
+1083%
6−7
−1083%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36
+800%
4−5
−800%
Valorant 130−140
+487%
21−24
−487%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 72 no data

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+1600%
2−3
−1600%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30 no data
Metro Exodus 20 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170 no data
Valorant 159 no data

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 47 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 15 no data
Far Cry 5 35 no data
Forza Horizon 4 40−45 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 44 no data

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 14−16 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+129%
14−16
−129%
Metro Exodus 12 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21 no data
Valorant 90 0−1

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 25 no data
Counter-Strike 2 14−16 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 5 no data
Dota 2 45 no data
Far Cry 5 18 no data
Forza Horizon 4 30−33 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 Mobile is 4000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 1650 Mobile surpassed ATI IGP 340M in all 19 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Recency 15 April 2020 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 12 nm 180 nm

GTX 1650 Mobile has an age advantage of 17 years, and a 1400% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile and Radeon IGP 340M. We've got no test results to judge.

Other comparisons

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 4026 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 340M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile or Radeon IGP 340M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.