GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD 7970M Crossfire
2012
200 Watt
16.01

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking335334
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.5637.09
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameWimbledon XTTU117
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 May 2012 (12 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 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 cores25601024
Core clock speed850 MHz930 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1125 MHz
Number of transistorsno data4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rateno data72.00
Floating-point processing powerno data2.304 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data64

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 sizelargemedium sized
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data4 GB
Memory bus width2x 256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed4800 MHz1751 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data112.1 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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.112 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
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 7970M Crossfire 16.01
GTX 1650 Max-Q 16.01

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
+0.3%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 11083

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
+0.5%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 30957

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:

900p132
+1.5%
130−140
−1.5%
Full HD101
+80.4%
56
−80.4%
1440p30−33
+0%
30
+0%
4K16−18
−6.3%
17
+6.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−36.1%
49
+36.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Battlefield 5 50−55
−18.9%
63
+18.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
−31.3%
42
+31.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−26.3%
48
+26.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
−34.1%
59
+34.1%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
−89.3%
195
+89.3%
Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+1.3%
80−85
−1.3%
Metro Exodus 55−60
−29.1%
71
+29.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
−22.7%
54
+22.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+1.9%
50−55
−1.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−91.7%
69
+91.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Battlefield 5 50−55
−3.8%
55
+3.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
−25%
40
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
38
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+7.3%
41
−7.3%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
−73.8%
179
+73.8%
Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+1.3%
80−85
−1.3%
Metro Exodus 55−60
−5.5%
58
+5.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
−2.3%
45
+2.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+1.9%
50−55
−1.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+80%
20
−80%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+28%
25
−28%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+46.2%
26
−46.2%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+87.3%
55
−87.3%
Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+1.3%
80−85
−1.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+1.9%
50−55
−1.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+26.7%
30
−26.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+4.8%
42
−4.8%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
−6.5%
33
+6.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−4%
26
+4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
−6.3%
17
+6.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
19
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
−44.2%
124
+44.2%
Hitman 3 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
−10.3%
32
+10.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+45.5%
11
−45.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−8.3%
13
+8.3%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
−37.5%
22
+37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−20%
18
+20%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+12.5%
8
−12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+7.7%
13
−7.7%

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

  • HD 7970M Crossfire is 2% faster in 900p
  • HD 7970M Crossfire is 80% faster in 1080p
  • A tie in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 6% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 7970M Crossfire is 87% faster.
  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 Max-Q is 92% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD 7970M Crossfire is ahead in 16 tests (22%)
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is ahead in 22 tests (31%)
  • there's a draw in 34 tests (47%)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 May 2012 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 30 Watt

GTX 1650 Max-Q has an age advantage of 6 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 566.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire
Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.1 19 votes

Rate Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 617 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.