GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon HD 7870

Place in the ranking	403	326
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.00	no data
Power efficiency	4.79	23.18
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Pitcairn	TU117
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	5 March 2012 (12 years ago)	2 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$349	no data

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 cores	1280	1024
Core clock speed	1000 MHz	1035 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1200 MHz
Number of transistors	2,800 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	80.00	76.80
Floating-point processing power	2.56 TFLOPS	2.458 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	80	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 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	241 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1200 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	153.6 GB/s	160.0 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	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.

HD 7870 12.02

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 16.62
+38.3%

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.

HD 7870 4638

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 6413
+38.3%

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.

HD 7870 6194

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 11538
+86.3%

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.

HD 7870 21348

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 31116
+45.8%

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:

900p	84 −31%	110−120 +31%
Full HD	68 +25.9%	54 −25.9%
1440p	24−27 −45.8%	35 +45.8%
4K	18−20 −38.9%	25 +38.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	5.13	no data
1440p	14.54	no data
4K	19.39	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

18−20

−36.8%

24−27
+36.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 −75%	49 +75%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 −100%	38 +100%
Battlefield 5	35−40 −42.1%	50−55 +42.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 −87.5%	45 +87.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −36.8%	24−27 +36.8%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −39.3%	35−40 +39.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 −36.4%	45−50 +36.4%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 −32.5%	100−110 +32.5%
Hitman 3	21−24 −95.7%	45 +95.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 −29.7%	80−85 +29.7%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −115%	86 +115%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 −90.9%	63 +90.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 −38.5%	50−55 +38.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 −193%	202 +193%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 −35.7%	35−40 +35.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 −26.3%	24 +26.3%
Battlefield 5	35−40 −42.1%	50−55 +42.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 −41.7%	34 +41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −36.8%	24−27 +36.8%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −39.3%	35−40 +39.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 −36.4%	45−50 +36.4%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 −32.5%	100−110 +32.5%
Hitman 3	21−24 −87%	43 +87%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 −29.7%	80−85 +29.7%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −65%	66 +65%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 −39.4%	46 +39.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 −59%	62 +59%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−33 −30%	35−40 +30%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 −180%	193 +180%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +47.4%	19 −47.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +58.3%	12 −58.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +9.1%	22 −9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −36.8%	24−27 +36.8%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −39.3%	35−40 +39.3%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 −32.5%	100−110 +32.5%
Hitman 3	21−24 −65.2%	38 +65.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +12.3%	57 −12.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 −38.5%	54 +38.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 −60%	32 +60%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +331%	16 −331%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35

−39.4%

46
+39.4%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −39.1%	30−35 +39.1%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 −38.9%	24−27 +38.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −41.7%	16−18 +41.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 −50%	12 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 −38.5%	18−20 +38.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −35.7%	18−20 +35.7%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −53.4%	85−90 +53.4%
Hitman 3	14−16 −66.7%	25 +66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 −64%	41 +64%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −57.9%	30−33 +57.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 −84.2%	35 +84.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −50%	18−20 +50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 −73.3%	130 +73.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

20−22

−35%

27−30
+35%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 −45.5%	16−18 +45.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Hitman 3	8−9 −75%	14 +75%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 −51.8%	85−90 +51.8%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −54.5%	16−18 +54.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −100%	20 +100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −43.8%	21−24 +43.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −110%	21 +110%
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

−36.4%

14−16
+36.4%

This is how HD 7870 and GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 31% faster in 900p
HD 7870 is 26% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 46% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 39% 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 HD 7870 is 331% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 193% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD 7870 is ahead in 5 tests (7%)
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 66 tests (92%)
there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	12.02	16.62
Recency	5 March 2012	2 April 2020
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	175 Watt	50 Watt

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q has a 38.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7870 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 7870 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 1650 Ti 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.