GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q vs GTX 275

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 275 with GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

GTX 275
2009
896 MB GDDR3, 219 Watt
3.59

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q outperforms GTX 275 by a whopping 363% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking716326
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.33no data
Power efficiency1.1423.18
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGT200BTU117
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date15 January 2009 (15 years ago)2 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 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 cores2401024
Core clock speed633 MHz1035 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1200 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)219 Watt50 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate50.6476.80
Floating-point processing power0.6739 TFLOPS2.458 TFLOPS
ROPs2832
TMUs8064

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount896 MB4 GB
Memory bus width448 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1134 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth127.0 GB/s160.0 GB/s
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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL3.04.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.140
CUDA+7.5

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 275 3.59
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 16.63
+363%

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 275 1384
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 6413
+363%

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 HD10−12
−440%
54
+440%
1440p7−8
−400%
35
+400%
4K5−6
−400%
25
+400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p24.90no data
1440p35.57no data
4K49.80no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 49
+0%
49
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 38
+0%
38
+0%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45
+0%
45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Hitman 3 45
+0%
45
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 86
+0%
86
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 63
+0%
63
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 202
+0%
202
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24
+0%
24
+0%
Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 34
+0%
34
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Hitman 3 43
+0%
43
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 66
+0%
66
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 46
+0%
46
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 62
+0%
62
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 193
+0%
193
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 19
+0%
19
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12
+0%
12
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 22
+0%
22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Hitman 3 38
+0%
38
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 57
+0%
57
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 54
+0%
54
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 32
+0%
32
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16
+0%
16
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 46
+0%
46
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12
+0%
12
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Hitman 3 25
+0%
25
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 41
+0%
41
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35
+0%
35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 130
+0%
130
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 14
+0%
14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+0%
20
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5
+0%
5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21
+0%
21
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how GTX 275 and GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 440% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 400% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 400% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.59 16.63
Recency 15 January 2009 2 April 2020
Maximum RAM amount 896 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 219 Watt 50 Watt

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q has a 363.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 357.1% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 358.3% more advanced lithography process, and 338% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 275 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 275 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 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 275
GeForce GTX 275
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q

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.


3.7 137 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 275 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 208 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 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.