GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs ATI Radeon HD 3850 AGP
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 3850 AGP with GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.
1650 Max-Q outperforms HD 3850 AGP by a whopping 1363% 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 | 1141 | 382 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.05 | 38.58 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | RV670 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 January 2008 (17 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (6 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 | 320 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 668 MHz | 930 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1125 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.69 | 72.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4275 TFLOPS | 2.304 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 1024 KB |
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 | AGP 8x | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 828 MHz | 1751 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 52.99 GB/s | 112.1 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
API and SDK support
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 | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.140 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 4−5
−1400%
| 60
+1400%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−1400%
| 30
+1400%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−1700%
| 18
+1700%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 138
+0%
|
138
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 167
+0%
|
167
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
This is how ATI HD 3850 AGP and GTX 1650 Max-Q compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 Max-Q is 1400% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 Max-Q is 1400% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 Max-Q is 1700% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.03 | 15.07 |
| Recency | 3 January 2008 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 30 Watt |
GTX 1650 Max-Q has a 1363.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 358.3% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 3850 AGP in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 3850 AGP is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
