Radeon 780M vs GeForce GTX 1650
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon 780M by 11% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 255 | 283 |
| Place by popularity | 3 | 85 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 19.01 | 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) | 5 January 2023 (1 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.
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 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1485 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1665 MHz | 3000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 54 Watt (35 - 54 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 93.24 | 139.2 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon 780M 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.
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon 780M by 11% 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%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon 780M by 11% 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: 17%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon 780M by 11% 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: 17%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon 780M by 11% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon 780M by 17% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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: 14%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon 780M by 5% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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%
Radeon 780M outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 15% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
Benchmark coverage: 3%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon 780M by 36% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Radeon 780M outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 138% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Radeon 780M outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 1034% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Radeon 780M outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 78% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Radeon 780M outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 43% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Radeon 780M outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 196% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon 780M by 76% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Radeon 780M outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 549% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 3dsmax-05
Benchmark coverage: 2%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon 780M by 31% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 3dsmax-05.
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
+89.2%
| 37
−89.2%
|
| 1440p | 38
+81%
| 21
−81%
|
| 4K | 23
+91.7%
| 12
−91.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−21.9%
|
39
+21.9%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 53
+39.5%
|
35−40
−39.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 47
+46.9%
|
30−35
−46.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 61
−1.6%
|
60−65
+1.6%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 76
+61.7%
|
45−50
−61.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+3.2%
|
31
−3.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+54.5%
|
44
−54.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 66
+50%
|
44
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90
+40.6%
|
60−65
−40.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 76
+46.2%
|
50−55
−46.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 55
+14.6%
|
48
−14.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 52
+73.3%
|
30−33
−73.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 58
+38.1%
|
42
−38.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 56
+36.6%
|
41
−36.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 47
+23.7%
|
35−40
−23.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35
+9.4%
|
30−35
−9.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 53
−17%
|
60−65
+17%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 58
+23.4%
|
45−50
−23.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 62
+51.2%
|
41
−51.2%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 62
+51.2%
|
41
−51.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 83
+29.7%
|
60−65
−29.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 62
+19.2%
|
50−55
−19.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 41
+2.5%
|
40
−2.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+29.6%
|
27
−29.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 28
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 47
+34.3%
|
35
−34.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+60.9%
|
46
−60.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 48
+45.5%
|
33
−45.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 25
−52%
|
35−40
+52%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 13
−146%
|
30−35
+146%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 51
−21.6%
|
60−65
+21.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+39.1%
|
23
−39.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 58
+52.6%
|
38
−52.6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 57
+46.2%
|
39
−46.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65
+1.6%
|
60−65
−1.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
+44.8%
|
29
−44.8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21
+16.7%
|
18
−16.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 36
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 37
+27.6%
|
27−30
−27.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 26
+13%
|
23
−13%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+17.6%
|
16−18
−17.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 29
+26.1%
|
21−24
−26.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 13
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 39
−2.6%
|
40−45
+2.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+44.4%
|
27
−44.4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 41
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46
+24.3%
|
35−40
−24.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+15%
|
20
−15%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 20
+53.8%
|
12−14
−53.8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 19
+11.8%
|
16−18
−11.8%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 13
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+73.3%
|
15
−73.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 13
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+58.3%
|
12
−58.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+15.4%
|
24−27
−15.4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how GTX 1650 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 89.2% faster than Radeon 780M in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 81% faster than Radeon 780M in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 91.7% faster than Radeon 780M in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 73.3% faster than the Radeon 780M.
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 780M is 146% faster than the GTX 1650.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 53 tests (78%)
- Radeon 780M is ahead in 12 tests (18%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.35 | 18.35 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 5 January 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 54 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 780M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop card while Radeon 780M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
