Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS vs GeForce GTX 1650

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 with Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1650
2019
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
20.40
+77.5%

GTX 1650 outperforms Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS by an impressive 78% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking266412
Place by popularity3not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation39.25no data
Power efficiency18.8319.88
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)no data
GPU code nameTU117no data
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores8961536
Core clock speed1485 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1665 MHz1500 MHz
Number of transistors4,700 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology12 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate93.24no data
Floating-point processing power2.984 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs56no 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5LPDDR5x
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed2000 MHz8448 MHz
Memory bandwidth128.0 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortno data
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12_1
Shader Model6.5no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.2.131-
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 20.40
+77.5%
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS 11.49

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.

GTX 1650 13645
+93.2%
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS 7061

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.

GTX 1650 44694
+85.8%
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS 24058

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 made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GTX 1650 9203
+31.8%
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS 6982

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 HD69
+72.5%
40
−72.5%
1440p37
+106%
18−21
−106%
4K23
+91.7%
12−14
−91.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.16no data
1440p4.03no data
4K6.48no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 53
+96.3%
27−30
−96.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 47
+95.8%
24−27
−95.8%
Battlefield 5 79
+97.5%
40−45
−97.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 52
+92.6%
27−30
−92.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%
Far Cry 5 64
+82.9%
35−40
−82.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 80
+77.8%
45−50
−77.8%
Forza Horizon 4 229
+90.8%
120−130
−90.8%
Hitman 3 49
+81.5%
27−30
−81.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 292
+82.5%
160−170
−82.5%
Metro Exodus 101
+83.6%
55−60
−83.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 77
+92.5%
40−45
−92.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 115
+91.7%
60−65
−91.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 224
+86.7%
120−130
−86.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 83
+84.4%
45−50
−84.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35
+94.4%
18−20
−94.4%
Battlefield 5 72
+80%
40−45
−80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 46
+91.7%
24−27
−91.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%
Far Cry 5 52
+92.6%
27−30
−92.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 56
+86.7%
30−33
−86.7%
Forza Horizon 4 201
+82.7%
110−120
−82.7%
Hitman 3 47
+95.8%
24−27
−95.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 260
+85.7%
140−150
−85.7%
Metro Exodus 71
+103%
35−40
−103%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55
+83.3%
30−33
−83.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 74
+85%
40−45
−85%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+91.7%
24−27
−91.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 206
+87.3%
110−120
−87.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 25
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8
+100%
4−5
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+77.8%
18−20
−77.8%
Far Cry 5 39
+85.7%
21−24
−85.7%
Forza Horizon 4 65
+85.7%
35−40
−85.7%
Hitman 3 41
+95.2%
21−24
−95.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60
+100%
30−33
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 62
+107%
30−33
−107%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+100%
21−24
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21
+110%
10−11
−110%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 54
+80%
30−33
−80%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 42
+100%
21−24
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 36
+100%
18−20
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18
+80%
10−11
−80%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+91.7%
12−14
−91.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Far Cry 5 24
+100%
12−14
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 122
+87.7%
65−70
−87.7%
Hitman 3 27
+92.9%
14−16
−92.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 43
+79.2%
24−27
−79.2%
Metro Exodus 41
+95.2%
21−24
−95.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45
+87.5%
24−27
−87.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 145
+81.3%
80−85
−81.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35
+94.4%
18−20
−94.4%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 20
+100%
10−11
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 17
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Hitman 3 13
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 41
+95.2%
21−24
−95.2%
Metro Exodus 27
+92.9%
14−16
−92.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+85.7%
14−16
−85.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 13
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 12
+100%
6−7
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+87.5%
16−18
−87.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 26
+85.7%
14−16
−85.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8
+100%
4−5
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 17
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%

This is how GTX 1650 and Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 73% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 106% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 92% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.40 11.49
Chip lithography 12 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 40 Watt

GTX 1650 has a 77.5% higher aggregate performance score.

Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS, on the other hand, has a 200% more advanced lithography process, and 87.5% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop card while Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS is a notebook 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
GeForce GTX 1650
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS
SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS

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.


3.8 23276 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS 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.