GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4330
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 4330 and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1650 Ti Mobile outperforms ATI Mobility HD 4330 by a whopping 5752% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1348 | 308 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 96 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 28.14 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | M92 | TU116 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 9 January 2009 (16 years ago) | 23 April 2020 (5 years ago) |
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 | 80 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1485 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 242 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.600 | 95.04 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.072 TFLOPS | 3.041 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 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 |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 600 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 9.6 GB/s | 192.0 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 outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 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.
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.
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 | 0−1 | 58 |
| 1440p | 0−1 | 44 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 24 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−5800%
|
59
+5800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4500%
|
46
+4500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2467%
|
75−80
+2467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−929%
|
70−75
+929%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−624%
|
181
+624%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1514%
|
220−230
+1514%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3500%
|
36
+3500%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−1090%
|
119
+1090%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2467%
|
75−80
+2467%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 38 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−929%
|
70−75
+929%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1340%
|
72
+1340%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−620%
|
180
+620%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3300%
|
34
+3300%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−1020%
|
112
+1020%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2467%
|
75−80
+2467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−929%
|
70−75
+929%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−680%
|
39
+680%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−472%
|
140−150
+472%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 35−40 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−5533%
|
160−170
+5533%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−4600%
|
45−50
+4600%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 41 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−4100%
|
84
+4100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−1800%
|
18−20
+1800%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 123
+0%
|
123
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 164
+0%
|
164
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is 5800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is ahead in 24 tests (39%)
- there's a draw in 38 tests (61%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.31 | 18.14 |
| Recency | 9 January 2009 | 23 April 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 12 nm |
GTX 1650 Ti Mobile has a 5751.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 358.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 4330 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
