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

Place in the ranking	337	328
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	5.53	23.14
Architecture	GCN (2012−2015)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Wimbledon XT	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 May 2012 (12 years ago)	2 April 2020 (4 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	2560	1024
Core clock speed	850 MHz	1035 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1200 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	76.80
Floating-point processing power	no data	2.458 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	32
TMUs	no data	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	large	medium sized
Interface	no data	PCIe 3.0 x16
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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	no data	4 GB
Memory bus width	2x 256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	4800 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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

no data

No outputs

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	-	1.2.140
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 16.04

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 16.77
+4.6%

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 Ti Max-Q 11538
+3.8%

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%

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 31116

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 +1.5%	130−140 −1.5%
Full HD	101 +80.4%	56 −80.4%
1440p	30−35 −20%	36 +20%
4K	21−24 −14.3%	24 +14.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 −6.5%	30−35 +6.5%
Elden Ring	45−50 −6.1%	50−55 +6.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −3.8%	50−55 +3.8%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +82.4%	17 −82.4%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 −16.7%	77 +16.7%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −27.3%	56 +27.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −61.5%	63 +61.5%
Valorant	60−65 −42.2%	91 +42.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −3.8%	50−55 +3.8%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +138%	13 −138%
Dota 2	55−60 −43.9%	82 +43.9%
Elden Ring	45−50 −6.1%	50−55 +6.1%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −15.5%	67 +15.5%
Fortnite	85−90 −4.5%	90−95 +4.5%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +6.5%	62 −6.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 −17.5%	67 +17.5%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +15.8%	38 −15.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −3.5%	110−120 +3.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 −6.1%	50−55 +6.1%
Valorant	60−65 +52.4%	42 −52.4%
World of Tanks	200−210 −3%	200−210 +3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −3.8%	50−55 +3.8%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +182%	11 −182%
Dota 2	55−60 −86%	106 +86%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −1.7%	55−60 +1.7%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +22.2%	54 −22.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 −3.5%	110−120 +3.5%
Valorant	60−65 −4.7%	65−70 +4.7%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	24−27 −8.3%	26 +8.3%
Elden Ring	24−27 −8%	27−30 +8%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 −8.3%	26 +8.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 −4.7%	150−160 +4.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −7.1%	14−16 +7.1%
World of Tanks	110−120 −4.5%	110−120 +4.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −6.3%	30−35 +6.3%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −8.3%	12−14 +8.3%
Far Cry 5	40−45 −5%	40−45 +5%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +14.3%	35 −14.3%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −5.7%	35−40 +5.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −4.8%	21−24 +4.8%
Valorant	40−45 −5%	40−45 +5%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 +12%	25 −12%
Elden Ring	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +8%	25 −8%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −6.4%	50−55 +6.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −10%	10−12 +10%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +8%	25 −8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Dota 2	27−30 −85.7%	52 +85.7%
Far Cry 5	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
Fortnite	18−20 −5.6%	18−20 +5.6%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +9.5%	21 −9.5%
Valorant	18−20 −5.6%	18−20 +5.6%

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

HD 7970M Crossfire is 2% faster in 900p
HD 7970M Crossfire is 80% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 20% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 14% faster in 4K

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

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 7970M Crossfire is 182% faster.
in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 86% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD 7970M Crossfire is ahead in 12 tests (19%)
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 48 tests (76%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	16.04	16.77
Recency	1 May 2012	2 April 2020
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	200 Watt	50 Watt

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q has a 4.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.

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

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