GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon HD 7950

Place in the ranking	404	330
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.48	no data
Power efficiency	4.28	23.16
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Tahiti	TU117
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	31 January 2012 (12 years ago)	2 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$449	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	1792	1024
Compute units	28	no data
Core clock speed	no data	1035 MHz
Boost clock speed	1250 MHz	1200 MHz
Number of transistors	4,313 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	89.60	76.80
Floating-point processing power	2.867 TFLOPS	2.458 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	112	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
Bus support	PCIe 3.0 x16	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 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	3 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	240 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	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-

API compatibility

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

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

HD 7950 12.40

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 16.79
+35.4%

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 7950 4764

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 6453
+35.5%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

HD 7950 7500

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 8564
+14.2%

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	40−45 −40%	56 +40%
1440p	24−27 −50%	36 +50%
4K	16−18 −50%	24 +50%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	11.23	no data
1440p	18.71	no data
4K	28.06	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	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	17 +0%	17 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	77 +0%	77 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	56 +0%	56 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	63 +0%	63 +0%
Valorant	91 +0%	91 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	13 +0%	13 +0%
Dota 2	82 +0%	82 +0%
Far Cry 5	67 +0%	67 +0%
Fortnite	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	62 +0%	62 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	67 +0%	67 +0%
Metro Exodus	38 +0%	38 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Valorant	42 +0%	42 +0%
World of Tanks	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +0%	11 +0%
Dota 2	106 +0%	106 +0%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	54 +0%	54 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Valorant	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	26 +0%	26 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	26 +0%	26 +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	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35 +0%	35 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +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	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Dota 2	25 +0%	25 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	25 +0%	25 +0%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	25 +0%	25 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	52 +0%	52 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Fortnite	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21 +0%	21 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

This is how HD 7950 and GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 40% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 50% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 50% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

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

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	12.40	16.79
Recency	31 January 2012	2 April 2020
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	50 Watt

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q has a 35.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7950 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 7950 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.