Radeon 780M vs GeForce GTX 1650

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 with Radeon 780M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1650
2019
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
20.41
+11.3%

GTX 1650 outperforms 780M by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking267299
Place by popularity349
Cost-effectiveness evaluation39.11no data
Power efficiency18.9485.06
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameTU117Hawx Point
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)6 December 2023 (1 year 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 cores896768
Core clock speed1485 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speed1665 MHz2700 MHz
Number of transistors4,700 million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate93.24129.6
Floating-point processing power2.984 TFLOPS8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs5648
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed2000 MHzSystem Shared
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 DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
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 20.41
+11.3%
Radeon 780M 18.33

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 7872
+11.3%
Radeon 780M 7072

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
+6.7%
Radeon 780M 12785

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
+7.4%
Radeon 780M 41622

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
+15.4%
Radeon 780M 7977

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.

GTX 1650 50549
+5.1%
Radeon 780M 48105

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.

GTX 1650 373333
Radeon 780M 429810
+15.1%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

GTX 1650 91
+36.2%
Radeon 780M 67

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

GTX 1650 45
Radeon 780M 108
+138%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

GTX 1650 6
Radeon 780M 73
+1034%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

GTX 1650 44
Radeon 780M 78
+78.2%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

GTX 1650 35
Radeon 780M 50
+42.8%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

GTX 1650 21
Radeon 780M 63
+196%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

GTX 1650 51
+75.9%
Radeon 780M 29

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

GTX 1650 5
Radeon 780M 31
+549%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 3dsmax-05

GTX 1650 106
+31%
Radeon 780M 81

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
+91.7%
36
−91.7%
1440p39
+95%
20
−95%
4K22
+69.2%
13
−69.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.16no data
1440p3.82no data
4K6.77no data

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
+29.3%
40−45
−29.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 47
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Battlefield 5 79
+31.7%
60−65
−31.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 52
+40.5%
35−40
−40.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+3.2%
31
−3.2%
Far Cry 5 64
+48.8%
40−45
−48.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 80
+63.3%
45−50
−63.3%
Forza Horizon 4 229
+99.1%
110−120
−99.1%
Hitman 3 49
+40%
35−40
−40%
Horizon Zero Dawn 292
+224%
90−95
−224%
Metro Exodus 101
+60.3%
60−65
−60.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 77
+57.1%
45−50
−57.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 115
+91.7%
60−65
−91.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 224
+157%
85−90
−157%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 83
+102%
40−45
−102%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%
Battlefield 5 72
+20%
60−65
−20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 46
+24.3%
35−40
−24.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+33.3%
24
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 52
+20.9%
40−45
−20.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 56
+14.3%
45−50
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 201
+74.8%
110−120
−74.8%
Hitman 3 47
+34.3%
35−40
−34.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 260
+189%
90−95
−189%
Metro Exodus 71
+12.7%
60−65
−12.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55
+12.2%
45−50
−12.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 74
+37%
54
−37%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+9.5%
40−45
−9.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 206
+137%
85−90
−137%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 25
−64%
40−45
+64%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
−131%
30−33
+131%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8
−363%
35−40
+363%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+39.1%
23
−39.1%
Far Cry 5 39
−10.3%
40−45
+10.3%
Forza Horizon 4 65
−76.9%
110−120
+76.9%
Hitman 3 41
+17.1%
35−40
−17.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60
+13.2%
53
−13.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 62
+34.8%
46
−34.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+44.8%
29
−44.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21
+16.7%
18
−16.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 54
+10.2%
45−50
−10.2%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 42
+20%
35−40
−20%
Far Cry New Dawn 36
+28.6%
27−30
−28.6%

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%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+15%
20−22
−15%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Far Cry 5 24
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 122
+22%
100−105
−22%
Hitman 3 27
+22.7%
21−24
−22.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 43
+16.2%
35−40
−16.2%
Metro Exodus 41
+20.6%
30−35
−20.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45
+40.6%
32
−40.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+20%
20
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 145
+31.8%
110−120
−31.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 20
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 17
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Hitman 3 13
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 41
−129%
90−95
+129%
Metro Exodus 27
+42.1%
18−20
−42.1%
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%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 12
+20%
10−11
−20%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+20%
24−27
−20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 26
+52.9%
17
−52.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 17
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%

This is how GTX 1650 and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 92% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 95% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 69% faster in 4K

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 224% faster.
  • in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 780M is 363% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is ahead in 60 tests (83%)
  • Radeon 780M is ahead in 11 tests (15%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.41 18.33
Recency 23 April 2019 6 December 2023
Chip lithography 12 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 15 Watt

GTX 1650 has a 11.3% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 780M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 200% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

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.

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
AMD Radeon 780M
Radeon 780M

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 23590 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1508 votes

Rate Radeon 780M 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.