Radeon 740M vs GeForce GTX 1650

Place in performance ranking	256	447
Place by popularity	3	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	18.99	no data
Architecture	Turing (2018−2021)	RDNA 3
GPU code name	TU117	Phoenix
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)	23 May 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	no data
Current price	$185 (1.2x MSRP)	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	896	256
Core clock speed	1485 MHz	1500 MHz
Boost clock speed	1665 MHz	2500 MHz
Number of transistors	4,700 million	25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	30 Watt (30 - 15 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	93.24	40.00

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon 740M 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.

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	229 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	8000 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	128.0 GB/s	no 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 Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	Portable Device Dependent
HDMI	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.5	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3
CUDA	7.5	no data

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 20.36
+125%

Radeon 740M 9.03

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon 740M by 125% based on our aggregated 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 7878
+125%

Radeon 740M 3496

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon 740M by 125% 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	70 +133%	30−35 −133%
1440p	38 +138%	16−18 −138%
4K	23 +130%	10−12 −130%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−35
+129%

14−16

−129%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	53 +179%	18−20 −179%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	47 +262%	12−14 −262%
Battlefield 5	61 +103%	30−33 −103%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	76 +217%	24−27 −217%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +129%	14−16 −129%
Far Cry 5	68 +209%	21−24 −209%
Far Cry New Dawn	66 +175%	24−27 −175%
Forza Horizon 4	90 +181%	30−35 −181%
Hitman 3	76 +230%	21−24 −230%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55 +206%	18−20 −206%
Red Dead Redemption 2	52 +225%	16−18 −225%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	58 +205%	18−20 −205%
Watch Dogs: Legion	56 +273%	14−16 −273%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	47 +147%	18−20 −147%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35 +169%	12−14 −169%
Battlefield 5	53 +76.7%	30−33 −76.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	58 +142%	24−27 −142%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +129%	14−16 −129%
Far Cry 5	62 +182%	21−24 −182%
Far Cry New Dawn	62 +158%	24−27 −158%
Forza Horizon 4	83 +159%	30−35 −159%
Hitman 3	62 +170%	21−24 −170%
Horizon Zero Dawn	41 +128%	18−20 −128%
Metro Exodus	35 +169%	12−14 −169%
Red Dead Redemption 2	28 +75%	16−18 −75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	47 +147%	18−20 −147%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	74 +311%	18−20 −311%
Watch Dogs: Legion	48 +220%	14−16 −220%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	25 +31.6%	18−20 −31.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +0%	12−14 +0%
Battlefield 5	51 +70%	30−33 −70%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +129%	14−16 −129%
Far Cry 5	58 +164%	21−24 −164%
Far Cry New Dawn	57 +138%	24−27 −138%
Forza Horizon 4	65 +103%	30−35 −103%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	42 +133%	18−20 −133%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21 +40%	14−16 −40%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	36 +177%	12−14 −177%
Hitman 3	37 +164%	14−16 −164%
Horizon Zero Dawn	26 +73.3%	14−16 −73.3%
Metro Exodus	20 +186%	7−8 −186%
Red Dead Redemption 2	17 +183%	6−7 −183%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	29 +142%	12−14 −142%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18 +125%	8−9 −125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +225%	4−5 −225%
Battlefield 5	39 +179%	14−16 −179%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Far Cry 5	39 +179%	14−16 −179%
Far Cry New Dawn	41 +193%	14−16 −193%
Forza Horizon 4	46 +188%	16−18 −188%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14 +250%	4−5 −250%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20 +233%	6−7 −233%
Hitman 3	19 +138%	8−9 −138%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8 +0%	8−9 +0%
Metro Exodus	12 +300%	3−4 −300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	13 +225%	4−5 −225%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	26 +333%	6−7 −333%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	13 +160%	5−6 −160%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5 +25%	4−5 −25%
Battlefield 5	21 +250%	6−7 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry 5	19 +171%	7−8 −171%
Far Cry New Dawn	21 +110%	10−11 −110%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +173%	10−12 −173%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8 +300%	2−3 −300%

This is how GTX 1650 and Radeon 740M compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 133% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 138% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 130% faster in 4K

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

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 333% faster than the Radeon 740M.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 1650 is ahead in 66 tests (97%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	20.36	9.03
Recency	23 April 2019	23 May 2023
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	System Shared
Chip lithography	12 nm	4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	30 Watt