GeForce GTX 1650 vs GTX 285

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GTX 260 Core 216 Rev. 2 GTX 260 OEM GTX 260 Rev. 2 GTX 275 GTX 275 PhysX Edition GTX 285 GTX 285 Mac Edition GTX 285 X2 GTX 295 GTX 295 Single PCB
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GTX 1650 GTX 1650 GDDR6 GTX 1650 SUPER GTX 1650 TU106 GTX 1650 TU116

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 285 and GeForce GTX 1650, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 285
2008
1 GB GDDR3, 204 Watt
3.86

GTX 1650 outperforms GTX 285 by a whopping 425% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

GTX 285 GTX 285
GTX 1650 GTX 1650

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking713281
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.3037.57
Power efficiency1.3118.73
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGT200BTU117
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date23 December 2008 (16 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$359 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

GTX 1650 has 12423% better value for money than GTX 285.

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 cores240896
Core clock speed648 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1665 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)204 Watt75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate51.8493.24
Floating-point processing power0.7085 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs8056

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 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mm229 mm
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot2-slot
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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1242 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth159.0 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsHDTVTwo Dual Link DVI1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno 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)128bitno data

API and SDK 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
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
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.

GTX 285 3.86
GTX 1650 20.25
+425%

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 285 1500
GTX 1650 7879
+425%

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 HD12−14
−475%
69
+475%
1440p7−8
−486%
41
+486%
4K4−5
−525%
25
+525%

Cost per frame, $

1080p29.92
−1285%
2.16
+1285%
1440p51.29
−1311%
3.63
+1311%
4K89.75
−1406%
5.96
+1406%
  • GTX 1650 has 1285% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 has 1311% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 has 1406% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Battlefield 5 61
+0%
61
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 69
+0%
69
+0%
Fortnite 211
+0%
211
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90
+0%
90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60
+0%
60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90
+0%
90
+0%
Valorant 292
+0%
292
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Battlefield 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 97
+0%
97
+0%
Far Cry 5 63
+0%
63
+0%
Fortnite 85
+0%
85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 83
+0%
83
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 81
+0%
81
+0%
Metro Exodus 35
+0%
35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 86
+0%
86
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 71
+0%
71
+0%
Valorant 260
+0%
260
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 92
+0%
92
+0%
Far Cry 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65
+0%
65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 41
+0%
41
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 66
+0%
66
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 41
+0%
41
+0%
Valorant 70
+0%
70
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 61
+0%
61
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40
+0%
40
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 177
+0%
177
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 39
+0%
39
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 40
+0%
40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 46
+0%
46
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+0%
31
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 42
+0%
42
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 33
+0%
33
+0%
Metro Exodus 12
+0%
12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+0%
26
+0%
Valorant 83
+0%
83
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 59
+0%
59
+0%
Far Cry 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 26
+0%
26
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 11
+0%
11
+0%

This is how GTX 285 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 475% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 486% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 525% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 3.86 20.25
Recency 23 December 2008 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 204 Watt 75 Watt

GTX 1650 has a 424.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 358.3% more advanced lithography process, and 172% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285 in performance tests.

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 285
GeForce GTX 285
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

GTX 285 GeForce GTX 285
vs
GT 740 GeForce GT 740
GTX 1650 GeForce GTX 1650
vs
GTX 780 GeForce GTX 780
GTX 285 GeForce GTX 285
vs
ATI HD 4890 Radeon HD 4890
8800 GTX 8800 GTX
vs
GTX 285 GTX 285
FireStream 9250 FireStream 9250
vs
GTX 285 GTX 285
Quadro 4000 4000
vs
GTX 285 GTX 285
FX 4800 FX 4800
vs
GTX 285 GTX 285
UHD Graphics 630 UHD Graphics 630
vs
GTX 285 GTX 285
RTX 4060 4060
vs
GTX 285 285
RTX 4090 4090
vs
GTX 285 285
GTX 1630 1630
vs
GTX 285 285
ATI HD 4670 HD 4670
vs
9600 GSO 512 9600 GSO 512
ATI HD 2600 PRO AGP HD 2600 PRO AGP
vs
9600 GSO 512 9600 GSO 512

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.7 111 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 285 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 24773 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 285 or GeForce GTX 1650, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.