GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs 760 Ti OEM

Place in performance ranking	348	314
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.39	8.33
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	GK104	N18P-G0 / N18P-G61
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	27 September 2013 (10 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Current price	$229	$1185

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 Max-Q has 146% better value for money than GTX 760 Ti OEM.

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	1344	1024
Core clock speed	915 MHz	1020 MHz
Boost clock speed	980 MHz	1245 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	170 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	109.8	72.00
Floating-point performance	2,634 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 760 Ti OEM and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	241 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	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, GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	6008 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.3 GB/s	112.1 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2.140
CUDA	3.0	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 760 Ti OEM 14.05

GTX 1650 Max-Q 15.97
+13.7%

1650 Max-Q outperforms 760 Ti OEM by 14% 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%

GTX 760 Ti OEM 5427

GTX 1650 Max-Q 6169
+13.7%

1650 Max-Q outperforms 760 Ti OEM by 14% 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	50−55 −22%	61 +22%
1440p	24−27 −16.7%	28 +16.7%
4K	16−18 −18.8%	19 +18.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

21−24

−19%

24−27
+19%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 −22.5%	49 +22.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 −28.6%	27−30 +28.6%
Battlefield 5	55−60 −14.5%	63 +14.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 −20%	42 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −19%	24−27 +19%
Far Cry 5	40−45 −20%	48 +20%
Far Cry New Dawn	50−55 −18%	59 +18%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 −13.8%	74 +13.8%
Hitman 3	27−30 −14.8%	30−35 +14.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 −16.4%	60−65 +16.4%
Metro Exodus	60−65 −18.3%	71 +18.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 −20%	54 +20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 −25%	50−55 +25%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −27.5%	50−55 +27.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 −17.1%	41 +17.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 −28.6%	27−30 +28.6%
Battlefield 5	45−50 −22.2%	55 +22.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 −14.3%	40 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −19%	24−27 +19%
Far Cry 5	30−33 −26.7%	38 +26.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 −17.1%	41 +17.1%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 −19.3%	179 +19.3%
Hitman 3	27−30 −14.8%	30−35 +14.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 −16.4%	60−65 +16.4%
Metro Exodus	45−50 −17.8%	53 +17.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −28.6%	45 +28.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 −25%	50−55 +25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 −17.8%	53 +17.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −27.5%	50−55 +27.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 −25%	20 +25%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 −28.6%	27−30 +28.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 −19%	25 +19%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −19%	24−27 +19%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −23.8%	26 +23.8%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −22.2%	55 +22.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 −16.4%	60−65 +16.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 −25%	50−55 +25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −25%	30 +25%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −27.5%	50−55 +27.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35−40

−20%

42
+20%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −22.2%	33 +22.2%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 −14.3%	40 +14.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 −21.4%	17 +21.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 −30%	12−14 +30%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 −25%	20−22 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −23.8%	24−27 +23.8%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −14.8%	30−35 +14.8%
Hitman 3	16−18 −18.8%	18−20 +18.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −18.5%	30−35 +18.5%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −18.5%	32 +18.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 −25%	30−33 +25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −21.4%	16−18 +21.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

−23.8%

24−27
+23.8%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 −22.2%	11 +22.2%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 −30%	13 +30%
Hitman 3	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −21.4%	16−18 +21.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −20%	12 +20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −28.6%	18 +28.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −14.3%	8 +14.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −28.6%	9 +28.6%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −22.2%	21−24 +22.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −21.4%	16−18 +21.4%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −14.3%	16 +14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

−30%

13
+30%

This is how GTX 760 Ti OEM and GTX 1650 Max-Q compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 Max-Q is 22% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Max-Q is 17% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Max-Q is 19% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.05	15.97
Recency	27 September 2013	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	170 Watt	35 Watt