GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVS 2100M

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated266
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data39.23
Power efficiencyno data18.80
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGT218TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date7 January 2010 (14 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 cores16896
Core clock speed535 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1665 MHz
Number of transistors260 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)11 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate4.28093.24
Floating-point processing power0.03936 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs856

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount512 MB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.64 GB/s128.0 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 outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA1.27.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

NVS 2100M 139
GTX 1650 7871
+5563%

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.

NVS 2100M 992
GTX 1650 44694
+4405%

Pros & cons summary


Recency 7 January 2010 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 11 Watt 75 Watt

NVS 2100M has 581.8% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between NVS 2100M and GeForce GTX 1650. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that NVS 2100M is a mobile workstation 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.


NVIDIA NVS 2100M
NVS 2100M
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.


4.3 9 votes

Rate NVS 2100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 23298 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.