GeForce GTX 1650 vs Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated269
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data38.18
Power efficiencyno data18.67
ArchitectureGen. 3 (2005)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGMA 950TU117
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 March 2005 (19 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 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 cores4896
Core clock speedno data1485 MHz
Boost clock speed250 MHz1665 MHz
Number of transistorsno data4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)7 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rateno data93.24
Floating-point processing powerno data2.984 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data56

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data4 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data128.0 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 Connectorsno data1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXno data12 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-1.2.131
CUDA-7.5

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 March 2005 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 130 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 75 Watt

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 has 971.4% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 14 years, and a 983.3% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 and GeForce GTX 1650. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 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.

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.


Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


2.2 77 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 23709 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.