GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile vs Qualcomm Adreno 680
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Qualcomm Adreno 680 and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1650 Ti Mobile outperforms Qualcomm Adreno 680 by a whopping 857% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 865 | 268 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 69 |
| Power efficiency | 20.87 | 27.98 |
| Architecture | no data | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | no data | TU116 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 December 2018 (5 years ago) | 23 April 2020 (4 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 | no data | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1485 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 95.04 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 3.041 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 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 | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 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. 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.
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.
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.
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 | 6−7
−867%
| 58
+867%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−975%
| 43
+975%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−1250%
| 27
+1250%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1080%
|
59
+1080%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−578%
|
61
+578%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−4800%
|
49
+4800%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1550%
|
65−70
+1550%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−657%
|
53
+657%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−820%
|
46
+820%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1280%
|
69
+1280%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−1100%
|
84
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−786%
|
120−130
+786%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−538%
|
51
+538%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−762%
|
181
+762%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−2933%
|
91
+2933%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−529%
|
44
+529%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−458%
|
65−70
+458%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−429%
|
201
+429%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−3100%
|
32
+3100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1550%
|
65−70
+1550%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−571%
|
47
+571%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−620%
|
36
+620%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1060%
|
58
+1060%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−743%
|
59
+743%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−786%
|
120−130
+786%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−525%
|
50
+525%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−757%
|
180
+757%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−2533%
|
79
+2533%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−457%
|
39
+457%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−525%
|
75
+525%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−221%
|
45−50
+221%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−382%
|
183
+382%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−200%
|
27
+200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−1400%
|
15
+1400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−343%
|
31
+343%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−580%
|
34
+580%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−680%
|
39
+680%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−786%
|
120−130
+786%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−438%
|
43
+438%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−205%
|
64
+205%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−425%
|
63
+425%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−179%
|
39
+179%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+72.7%
|
22
−72.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−486%
|
41
+486%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−875%
|
35−40
+875%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−850%
|
38
+850%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−1000%
|
21−24
+1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16
+1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−767%
|
26
+767%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−250%
|
28
+250%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−486%
|
40−45
+486%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1050%
|
21−24
+1050%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−650%
|
120
+650%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−900%
|
20
+900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 9−10 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Hitman 3 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how Qualcomm Adreno 680 and GTX 1650 Ti Mobile compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is 867% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is 975% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is 1250% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 73% faster.
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is 4800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Qualcomm Adreno 680 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is ahead in 59 tests (84%)
- there's a draw in 10 tests (14%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.11 | 20.20 |
| Recency | 6 December 2018 | 23 April 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 50 Watt |
Qualcomm Adreno 680 has a 71.4% more advanced lithography process, and 614.3% lower power consumption.
GTX 1650 Ti Mobile, on the other hand, has a 857.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm Adreno 680 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
