GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVS 4200M

Place in performance ranking	1126	254
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation	0.01	19.02
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	GF119	TU117
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149
Current price	$229	$185 (1.2x MSRP)

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 has 190100% better value for money than NVS 4200M.

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	48	896
Core clock speed	810 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	6.480	93.24
Floating-point performance	155.52 gflops	no data

Form Factor & Compatibility

Information on NVS 4200M and GeForce GTX 1650 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	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	128.0 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
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	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	2.1	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.

NVS 4200M 0.71

GTX 1650 20.35
+2766%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms NVS 4200M by 2766% based on our aggregated 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%

NVS 4200M 275

GTX 1650 7877
+2764%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms NVS 4200M by 2764% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

NVS 4200M 2298

GTX 1650 44694
+1845%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms NVS 4200M by 1845% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

NVS 4200M 507

GTX 1650 13645
+2591%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms NVS 4200M by 2591% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

NVS 4200M 1155

GTX 1650 39405
+3312%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms NVS 4200M by 3312% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

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	13 −438%	70 +438%
1440p	1−2 −3700%	38 +3700%
4K	0−1	23

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−967%

30−35
+967%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −850%	76 +850%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −967%	30−35 +967%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −1633%	52 +1633%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −867%	58 +867%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −625%	58 +625%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −967%	30−35 +967%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −3400%	35 +3400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −833%	28 +833%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −683%	47 +683%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −2367%	74 +2367%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −967%	30−35 +967%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −1300%	42 +1300%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −1100%	36 +1100%
Hitman 3	3−4 −1133%	37 +1133%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −225%	26 +225%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −625%	29 +625%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −3800%	39 +3800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −2200%	21−24 +2200%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −1900%	20 +1900%
Hitman 3	1−2 −1800%	19 +1800%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −14.3%	8 +14.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	3−4 −533%	19 +533%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −320%	21 +320%

This is how NVS 4200M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 438% faster than NVS 4200M in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 3700% faster than NVS 4200M in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 is 3800% faster than the NVS 4200M.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, GTX 1650 surpassed NVS 4200M in all 25 of our tests.

Pros & Cons Summary

Performance score	0.71	20.35
Recency	22 February 2011	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	75 Watt