GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs NVS 300

Place in the ranking	1323	341
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	no data
Power efficiency	1.22	37.11
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GT218	TU117
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	8 January 2011 (14 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$109	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores	16	1024
Core clock speed	520 MHz	930 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1125 MHz
Number of transistors	260 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	18 Watt	30 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.160	72.00
Floating-point processing power	0.03936 TFLOPS	2.304 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
Length	145 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	790 MHz	1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.64 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

1x DMS-59

No outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (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	1.2	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. 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.

NVS 300 0.31

GTX 1650 Max-Q 15.77
+4987%

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 300 122

GTX 1650 Max-Q 6204
+4985%

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	1−2 −5700%	58 +5700%
1440p	0−1	29
4K	-0−1	18

Cost per frame, $

1080p

109.00

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	53 +0%	53 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	52 +0%	52 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	54 +0%	54 +0%
Valorant	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	59 +0%	59 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Dota 2	69 +0%	69 +0%
Far Cry 5	52 +0%	52 +0%
Fortnite	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	56 +0%	56 +0%
Metro Exodus	36 +0%	36 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	118 +0%	118 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	23 +0%	23 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Valorant	35 +0%	35 +0%
World of Tanks	167 +0%	167 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	44 +0%	44 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Dota 2	88 +0%	88 +0%
Far Cry 5	59 +0%	59 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Valorant	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
World of Tanks	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	29 +0%	29 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	32 +0%	32 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	10 +0%	10 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	43 +0%	43 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14 +0%	14 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Fortnite	19 +0%	19 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

This is how NVS 300 and GTX 1650 Max-Q compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 Max-Q is 5700% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.31	15.77
Recency	8 January 2011	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	18 Watt	30 Watt

NVS 300 has 66.7% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650 Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 4987.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 300 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 300 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is a notebook one.

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