Component comparison
GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce MX450
GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce MX450 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce GTX 1650
- + VRAM (GB) (+2 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+250 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+48 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+64 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+25 W)
- + CUDA cores (+128)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+2.88 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+5.04 GTexel/s)
- + PassMark (overall) (+3402)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+1588)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+4588)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+10612)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+8927)
- + Normalized score (+8.6)
B
GeForce MX450
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+0.92 TFLOPS)
- + Energy efficiency (+1.1)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce GTX 1650
|
Component B
GeForce MX450
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2020 | 2020 |
| VRAM (GB) | 4 GB (+2 GB) | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5, GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz (+250 MHz) | 1250 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 128 GB/s (+48 GB/s) | 80 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 128 bit (+64 bit) | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 50 W (+25 W) | 25 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 4,700M | 4,700M |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² | 200 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | 1575 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 1,024 (+128) | 896 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| RT cores | — | — |
| Tensor cores | — | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 2.30 TFLOPS | 3.23 TFLOPS (+0.92 TFLOPS) |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 53.28 GPixel/s (+2.88 GPixel/s) | 50.40 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 93.24 GTexel/s (+5.04 GTexel/s) | 88.20 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 26.4 | 27.6 (+1.1) |
| PassMark (overall) | 7,116 (+3402) | 3,714 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 3,488 (+1588) | 1,900 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 9,313 (+4588) | 4,725 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 39,153 (+10612) | 28,541 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 36,248 (+8927) | 27,321 |
| Normalized score | 53.3 (+8.6) | 44.7 |
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX450 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 60 FPS | 49 FPS | +22.4% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 131 FPS | 88 FPS | +48.9% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52 FPS | 32 FPS | +62.5% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 96 FPS | 88 FPS | +9.1% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 60 FPS | 34 FPS | +76.5% (A) |
| Fortnite | 90 FPS | 61 FPS | +47.5% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82 FPS | 35 FPS | +134.3% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 73 FPS | 34 FPS | +114.7% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 33 FPS | 10 FPS | +230% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 46 FPS | 16 FPS | +187.5% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 62 FPS | 33 FPS | +87.9% (A) |
| Valorant | 164 FPS | 85 FPS | +92.9% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce GTX 1650 wins 14 of the comparable criteria.
The choice depends on your use case.
🤔 How to choose
Universal advice for any use case.
- Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
- Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
- Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).