GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs TITAN Xp

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared TITAN Xp with GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

TITAN Xp
2017, $1,199
12 GB GDDR5X, 250 Watt
46.02
+208%

TITAN Xp outperforms 1650 Max-Q by a whopping 208% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking87383
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation11.62no data
Power efficiency14.2638.61
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGP102TU117
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date6 April 2017 (8 years ago)23 April 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores38401024
Core clock speed1405 MHz930 MHz
Boost clock speed1582 MHz1125 MHz
Number of transistors11,800 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate379.772.00
Floating-point processing power12.15 TFLOPS2.304 TFLOPS
ROPs9632
TMUs24064
L1 Cache1.4 MB1 MB
L2 Cache3 MB1024 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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5XGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount12 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1426 MHz1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth547.6 GB/s112.1 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 Connectors1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4aNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.86.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.01.2
Vulkan1.31.2.140
CUDA6.17.5

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.

TITAN Xp 46.02
+208%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 14.95

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.

TITAN Xp 19424
+208%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 6310
Samples: 1995

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 HD180−190
+200%
60
−200%
1440p90−95
+200%
30
−200%
4K55−60
+206%
18
−206%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.66no data
1440p13.32no data
4K21.80no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 64
+0%
64
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Fortnite 138
+0%
138
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 74
+0%
74
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85
+0%
85
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 54
+0%
54
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 167
+0%
167
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 94
+0%
94
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Fortnite 80
+0%
80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 69
+0%
69
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 56
+0%
56
+0%
Metro Exodus 28
+0%
28
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 71
+0%
71
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 53
+0%
53
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 49
+0%
49
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 88
+0%
88
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55
+0%
55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 53
+0%
53
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+0%
30
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 59
+0%
59
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 16
+0%
16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 36
+0%
36
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 36
+0%
36
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 10
+0%
10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+0%
18
+0%
Valorant 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 17
+0%
17
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 11
+0%
11
+0%

This is how TITAN Xp and GTX 1650 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • TITAN Xp is 200% faster in 1080p
  • TITAN Xp is 200% faster in 1440p
  • TITAN Xp is 206% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 46.02 14.95
Recency 6 April 2017 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 12 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 30 Watt

TITAN Xp has a 207.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1650 Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 733.3% lower power consumption.

The TITAN Xp is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q in performance tests.

Be aware that TITAN Xp is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is a notebook one.

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.


NVIDIA TITAN Xp
TITAN Xp
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

Other comparisons

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 4730 votes

Rate TITAN Xp on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 709 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about TITAN Xp or GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.