GeForce GTX 1650 vs GTX 485M SLI

Place in performance ranking	470	267
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	41.11
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	N11E-GTX-A1	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	6 January 2011 (13 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	768	896
Core clock speed	575 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	93.24
Floating-point performance	no data	2.984 gflops

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	large	no data
Interface	no data	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2x2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	128.0 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 Connectors	no data	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	no data	6.5
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	1.2
Vulkan	-	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.

GTX 485M SLI 9.23

GTX 1650 20.41
+121%

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 485M SLI 24830

GTX 1650 44694
+80%

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 485M SLI 5334

GTX 1650 13645
+156%

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	102 +45.7%	70 −45.7%
1440p	16−18 −131%	37 +131%
4K	10−12 −140%	24 +140%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

14−16

−129%

30−35
+129%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −141%	53 +141%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 −262%	47 +262%
Battlefield 5	27−30 −182%	79 +182%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 −174%	52 +174%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −129%	30−35 +129%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −205%	64 +205%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 −208%	80 +208%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −275%	229 +275%
Hitman 3	18−20 −172%	49 +172%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 −473%	292 +473%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −248%	101 +248%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −196%	77 +196%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 −283%	115 +283%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −267%	224 +267%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −277%	83 +277%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 −169%	35 +169%
Battlefield 5	27−30 −157%	72 +157%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 −142%	46 +142%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −129%	30−35 +129%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −148%	52 +148%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 −115%	56 +115%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −230%	201 +230%
Hitman 3	18−20 −161%	47 +161%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 −410%	260 +410%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −145%	71 +145%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −112%	55 +112%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 −147%	74 +147%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −84%	45−50 +84%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −238%	206 +238%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −13.6%	25 +13.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	13 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +138%	8 −138%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −129%	30−35 +129%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −85.7%	39 +85.7%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −6.6%	65 +6.6%
Hitman 3	18−20 −128%	41 +128%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 −17.6%	60 +17.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 −107%	62 +107%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −68%	42 +68%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +190%	21 −190%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

−108%

54
+108%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −133%	42 +133%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 −157%	36 +157%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −100%	18 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −160%	13 +160%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −156%	21−24 +156%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −118%	24 +118%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −213%	122 +213%
Hitman 3	12−14 −125%	27 +125%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −126%	43 +126%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −215%	41 +215%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −309%	45 +309%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −167%	24−27 +167%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 −146%	145 +146%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

−133%

35
+133%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 −150%	20 +150%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 −183%	17 +183%
Hitman 3	5−6 −160%	13 +160%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 −10.8%	41 +10.8%
Metro Exodus	7−8 −286%	27 +286%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 −333%	26 +333%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −160%	13 +160%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −25%	5 +25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −175%	10−12 +175%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −140%	12 +140%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 −173%	30 +173%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 −420%	26 +420%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 −167%	8 +167%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

−88.9%

17
+88.9%

This is how GTX 485M SLI and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 485M SLI is 46% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 131% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 140% faster in 4K

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 485M SLI is 190% faster.
in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 473% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 485M SLI is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
GTX 1650 is ahead in 69 tests (96%)
there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.23	20.41
Recency	6 January 2011	23 April 2019
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	75 Watt

GTX 1650 has a 121.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 485M SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 485M SLI is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.