GeForce GTX 1650 vs 285
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 285 and GeForce GTX 1650, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
1650 outperforms 285 by a whopping 420% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 662 | 253 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 2 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.64 | 18.89 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 December 2008 (15 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $359 | $149 |
| Current price | $98 (0.3x MSRP) | $185 (1.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1650 has 2852% better value for money than GTX 285.
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 | 240 | 896 |
| CUDA cores | 240 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 648 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 204 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 51.8 billion/sec | 93.24 |
| Floating-point performance | 708.5 gflops | no data |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | 229 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1242 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 159.0 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | HDTVTwo Dual Link DVI | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | 128bit | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
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.
1650 outperforms 285 by 420% based on our aggregate 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%
1650 outperforms 285 by 420% 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 | 12−14
−475%
| 69
+475%
|
| 1440p | 7−8
−429%
| 37
+429%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−450%
| 22
+450%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−433%
|
30−35
+433%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
−430%
|
53
+430%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10
−422%
|
47
+422%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−464%
|
79
+464%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−478%
|
52
+478%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−433%
|
30−35
+433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−433%
|
64
+433%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
−471%
|
80
+471%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−463%
|
90
+463%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
−444%
|
49
+444%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−448%
|
115
+448%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−461%
|
101
+461%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
−450%
|
77
+450%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
−422%
|
94
+422%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11
−460%
|
56
+460%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−422%
|
47
+422%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 6−7
−483%
|
35
+483%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−500%
|
72
+500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−475%
|
46
+475%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−433%
|
30−35
+433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−478%
|
52
+478%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
−460%
|
56
+460%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−474%
|
201
+474%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−443%
|
38
+443%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
−478%
|
260
+478%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−442%
|
65
+442%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−425%
|
63
+425%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
−429%
|
74
+429%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−429%
|
74
+429%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−489%
|
206
+489%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−525%
|
25
+525%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−700%
|
8
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−433%
|
30−35
+433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−457%
|
39
+457%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−442%
|
65
+442%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−500%
|
60
+500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−520%
|
62
+520%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−425%
|
42
+425%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−425%
|
21
+425%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−440%
|
54
+440%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−425%
|
42
+425%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−456%
|
50
+456%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−500%
|
18
+500%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
−433%
|
32
+433%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−457%
|
39
+457%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−475%
|
46
+475%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−440%
|
27
+440%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−438%
|
43
+438%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−486%
|
41
+486%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−463%
|
45
+463%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−600%
|
14
+600%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−483%
|
35
+483%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−567%
|
20
+567%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−467%
|
17
+467%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−475%
|
21−24
+475%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−550%
|
26
+550%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 5 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−500%
|
30
+500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−475%
|
23
+475%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−425%
|
21
+425%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−700%
|
8
+700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−467%
|
17
+467%
|
This is how GTX 285 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 475% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 429% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 450% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.92 | 20.40 |
| Recency | 23 December 2008 | 23 April 2019 |
| Cost | $359 | $149 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 204 Watt | 75 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285 in performance tests.
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.
