GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon HD 8410G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8410G and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
1650 Ti Max-Q outperforms HD 8410G by a whopping 1417% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1138 | 372 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.27 | 24.09 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Scrapper | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 May 2013 (12 years ago) | 2 April 2020 (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 cores | 192 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1035 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 720 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.640 | 76.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2765 TFLOPS | 2.458 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 12 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1024 KB |
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 | IGP | 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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 160.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.140 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 3−4
−1700%
| 54
+1700%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−1550%
| 33
+1550%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−2300%
| 24
+2300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1600%
|
30−35
+1600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1600%
|
30−35
+1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2700%
|
56
+2700%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−4300%
|
85−90
+4300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−843%
|
65−70
+843%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−556%
|
55−60
+556%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−300%
|
120−130
+300%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−700%
|
200−210
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1600%
|
30−35
+1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−647%
|
112
+647%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2450%
|
51
+2450%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−4300%
|
85−90
+4300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−843%
|
65−70
+843%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−3000%
|
31
+3000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−556%
|
55−60
+556%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−800%
|
54
+800%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−300%
|
120−130
+300%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1600%
|
30−35
+1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−607%
|
106
+607%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2300%
|
48
+2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−843%
|
65−70
+843%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−556%
|
55−60
+556%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−433%
|
32
+433%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−300%
|
120−130
+300%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−4300%
|
85−90
+4300%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−933%
|
30−35
+933%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−1867%
|
110−120
+1867%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1460%
|
150−160
+1460%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−15800%
|
150−160
+15800%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3200%
|
33
+3200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1200%
|
35−40
+1200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1100%
|
24−27
+1100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1700%
|
35−40
+1700%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−78.6%
|
25
+78.6%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−1680%
|
85−90
+1680%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
This is how HD 8410G and GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 1700% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 1550% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 2300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 15800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q performs better in 44 tests (68%)
- there's a draw in 21 tests (32%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.98 | 14.87 |
| Recency | 23 May 2013 | 2 April 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
HD 8410G has 42.9% lower power consumption.
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 1417.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 166.7% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8410G in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
