GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire

Place in the ranking	331	264
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	39.51
Power efficiency	5.56	18.89
Architecture	GCN (2012−2015)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Wimbledon XT	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	1 May 2012 (12 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149

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	2560	896
Core clock speed	850 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	93.24
Floating-point processing power	no data	2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	32
TMUs	no data	56

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	large	no data
Interface	no data	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	no data	4 GB
Memory bus width	2x 256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	4800 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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 data	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	no data	6.5
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	1.2
Vulkan	-	1.2.131
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 7970M Crossfire 16.00

GTX 1650 20.40
+27.5%

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 7970M Crossfire 11119

GTX 1650 13645
+22.7%

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 7970M Crossfire 31127

GTX 1650 44694
+43.6%

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	132 −21.2%	160−170 +21.2%
Full HD	95 +41.8%	67 −41.8%
1440p	27−30 −37%	37 +37%
4K	18−20 −33.3%	24 +33.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.22
1440p	no data	4.03
4K	no data	6.21

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

24−27

−28%

30−35
+28%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 −47.2%	53 +47.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 −80.8%	47 +80.8%
Battlefield 5	50−55 −49.1%	79 +49.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 −62.5%	52 +62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −28%	30−35 +28%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −68.4%	64 +68.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 −81.8%	80 +81.8%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 −122%	229 +122%
Hitman 3	30−35 −58.1%	49 +58.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 −260%	292 +260%
Metro Exodus	55−60 −83.6%	101 +83.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −75%	77 +75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 −117%	115 +117%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 −177%	224 +177%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 −131%	83 +131%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 −34.6%	35 +34.6%
Battlefield 5	50−55 −35.8%	72 +35.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 −43.8%	46 +43.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −28%	30−35 +28%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −36.8%	52 +36.8%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 −27.3%	56 +27.3%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 −95.1%	201 +95.1%
Hitman 3	30−35 −51.6%	47 +51.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 −221%	260 +221%
Metro Exodus	55−60 −29.1%	71 +29.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −25%	55 +25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 −39.6%	74 +39.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 −21.1%	45−50 +21.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 −154%	206 +154%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +44%	25 −44%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +100%	13 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 +300%	8 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −28%	30−35 +28%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −2.6%	39 +2.6%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +58.5%	65 −58.5%
Hitman 3	30−35 −32.3%	41 +32.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +35%	60 −35%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 −17%	62 +17%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 −10.5%	42 +10.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +286%	21 −286%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

−22.7%

54
+22.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −35.5%	42 +35.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 −44%	36 +44%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 −12.5%	18 +12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	13 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 −35.3%	21−24 +35.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −26.3%	24 +26.3%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 −41.9%	122 +41.9%
Hitman 3	18−20 −42.1%	27 +42.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −30.3%	43 +30.3%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −41.4%	41 +41.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 −50%	45 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −41.2%	24−27 +41.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 −48%	145 +48%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

−34.6%

35
+34.6%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −25%	20 +25%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −41.7%	17 +41.7%
Hitman 3	12−14 −8.3%	13 +8.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +97.6%	41 −97.6%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −68.8%	27 +68.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −73.3%	26 +73.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −44.4%	13 +44.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +60%	5 −60%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 −37.5%	10−12 +37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −33.3%	12 +33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −36.4%	30 +36.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −62.5%	26 +62.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 −33.3%	8 +33.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

−21.4%

17
+21.4%

This is how HD 7970M Crossfire and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 21% faster in 900p
HD 7970M Crossfire is 42% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 37% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 33% faster in 4K

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

in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 7970M Crossfire is 300% faster.
in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 260% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD 7970M Crossfire is ahead in 8 tests (11%)
GTX 1650 is ahead in 63 tests (88%)
there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	16.00	20.40
Recency	1 May 2012	23 April 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	75 Watt

GTX 1650 has a 27.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 166.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.