GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs GTX 285

Place in the ranking	693	332
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.27	no data
Power efficiency	1.33	36.93
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GT200B	TU117
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	23 December 2008 (15 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$359	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 cores	240	1024
Core clock speed	648 MHz	930 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1125 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	204 Watt	30 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	51.84	72.00
Floating-point processing power	0.7085 TFLOPS	2.304 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	80	64

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 size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	None
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 type	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	512 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1242 MHz	1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth	159.0 GB/s	112.1 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 Connectors	HDTVTwo Dual Link DVI	No outputs
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 3D 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	1.2.140
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 285 3.92

GTX 1650 Max-Q 16.00
+308%

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 1513

GTX 1650 Max-Q 6173
+308%

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 −358%	55 +358%
1440p	6−7 −333%	26 +333%
4K	4−5 −350%	18 +350%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	29.92	no data
1440p	59.83	no data
4K	89.75	no 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	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Battlefield 5	63 +0%	63 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	42 +0%	42 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	48 +0%	48 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	59 +0%	59 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	195 +0%	195 +0%
Hitman 3	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Metro Exodus	71 +0%	71 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	54 +0%	54 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	69 +0%	69 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Battlefield 5	55 +0%	55 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40 +0%	40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	38 +0%	38 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	41 +0%	41 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	179 +0%	179 +0%
Hitman 3	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Metro Exodus	58 +0%	58 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45 +0%	45 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20 +0%	20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	25 +0%	25 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	26 +0%	26 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	55 +0%	55 +0%
Hitman 3	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30 +0%	30 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	33 +0%	33 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	26 +0%	26 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	17 +0%	17 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry 5	19 +0%	19 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	124 +0%	124 +0%
Hitman 3	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	32 +0%	32 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

+0%

24−27

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	11 +0%	11 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	13 +0%	13 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Metro Exodus	22 +0%	22 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18 +0%	18 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8 +0%	8 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	9 +0%	9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

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

GTX 1650 Max-Q is 358% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Max-Q is 333% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Max-Q is 350% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.92	16.00
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	30 Watt

GTX 1650 Max-Q has a 308.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 358.3% more advanced lithography process, and 580% lower power consumption.

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

Be aware that GeForce GTX 285 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 1650 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.