RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile vs GeForce GTX 1650
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 with RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms GTX 1650 by a whopping 150% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 314 | 82 |
| Place by popularity | 5 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 30.22 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 19.09 | 35.81 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | AD104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (6 years ago) | 21 March 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 896 | 5120 |
| Core clock speed | 1485 MHz | 1110 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1665 MHz | 1545 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 35,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 93.24 | 247.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.984 TFLOPS | 15.82 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 |
| TMUs | 56 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 432.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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 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.
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 | 64
−150%
| 160−170
+150%
|
| 1440p | 38
−150%
| 95−100
+150%
|
| 4K | 24
−150%
| 60−65
+150%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.33 | no data |
| 1440p | 3.92 | no data |
| 4K | 6.21 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−150%
|
270−280
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−144%
|
100−105
+144%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−143%
|
90−95
+143%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 61
−146%
|
150−160
+146%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−150%
|
270−280
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−144%
|
100−105
+144%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 69
−146%
|
170−180
+146%
|
| Fortnite | 211
−137%
|
500−550
+137%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90
−144%
|
220−230
+144%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 73
−147%
|
180−190
+147%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−143%
|
90−95
+143%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90
−144%
|
220−230
+144%
|
| Valorant | 292
−140%
|
700−750
+140%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 53
−145%
|
130−140
+145%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−150%
|
270−280
+150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
−138%
|
550−600
+138%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−144%
|
100−105
+144%
|
| Dota 2 | 97
−147%
|
240−250
+147%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 63
−138%
|
150−160
+138%
|
| Fortnite | 85
−147%
|
210−220
+147%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 83
−141%
|
200−210
+141%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 62
−142%
|
150−160
+142%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 81
−147%
|
200−210
+147%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−143%
|
90−95
+143%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
−143%
|
85−90
+143%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 86
−144%
|
210−220
+144%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
−139%
|
170−180
+139%
|
| Valorant | 260
−150%
|
650−700
+150%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 51
−135%
|
120−130
+135%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−144%
|
100−105
+144%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
−150%
|
230−240
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
−137%
|
140−150
+137%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65
−146%
|
160−170
+146%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−143%
|
90−95
+143%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 66
−142%
|
160−170
+142%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
−144%
|
100−105
+144%
|
| Valorant | 70
−143%
|
170−180
+143%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 61
−146%
|
150−160
+146%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−144%
|
95−100
+144%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−116%
|
300−310
+116%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
−150%
|
100−105
+150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
−150%
|
50−55
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−134%
|
400−450
+134%
|
| Valorant | 177
−126%
|
400−450
+126%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 39
−144%
|
95−100
+144%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−150%
|
45−50
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
−150%
|
100−105
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46
−139%
|
110−120
+139%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
−138%
|
50−55
+138%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
−142%
|
75−80
+142%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 42
−138%
|
100−105
+138%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−135%
|
40−45
+135%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
−142%
|
80−85
+142%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
−150%
|
65−70
+150%
|
| Valorant | 83
−141%
|
200−210
+141%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
−138%
|
50−55
+138%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−135%
|
40−45
+135%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
−137%
|
140−150
+137%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
−137%
|
45−50
+137%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
−150%
|
75−80
+150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
−150%
|
65−70
+150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 11
−145%
|
27−30
+145%
|
This is how GTX 1650 and RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile is 150% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile is 150% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile is 150% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.79 | 47.01 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 21 March 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 100 Watt |
GTX 1650 has 33.3% lower power consumption.
RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile, on the other hand, has a 150.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop graphics card while RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
