Component comparison
GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce MX550
GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce MX550 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce GTX 1650
- + VRAM (GB) (+2 GB)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+32 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+64 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+25 W)
- + TMUs (+32)
- + ROPs (+16)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+32.16 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+51.00 GTexel/s)
- + PassMark (overall) (+2697)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+1018)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+3187)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+5085)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+3879)
- + Normalized score (+4.2)
B
GeForce MX550
- + Release year (+1)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+0.40 TFLOPS)
- + Energy efficiency (+6.4)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce GTX 1650
|
Component B
GeForce MX550
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2020 | 2021 (+1) |
| VRAM (GB) | 4 GB (+2 GB) | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 128 GB/s (+32 GB/s) | 96 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) | — | 1065 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | 1320 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 1,024 | 1,024 |
| TMUs | 64 (+32) | 32 |
| ROPs | 32 (+16) | 16 |
| RT cores | — | — |
| Tensor cores | — | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 2.30 TFLOPS | 2.70 TFLOPS (+0.40 TFLOPS) |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 53.28 GPixel/s (+32.16 GPixel/s) | 21.12 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 93.24 GTexel/s (+51.00 GTexel/s) | 42.24 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 26.4 | 32.8 (+6.4) |
| PassMark (overall) | 7,116 (+2697) | 4,419 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 3,488 (+1018) | 2,470 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 9,313 (+3187) | 6,126 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 39,153 (+5085) | 34,068 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 36,248 (+3879) | 32,369 |
| Normalized score | 53.3 (+4.2) | 49.1 |
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce GTX 1650 | GeForce MX550 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 60 FPS | 45 FPS | +33.3% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 131 FPS | 55 FPS | +138.2% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52 FPS | 21 FPS | +147.6% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 96 FPS | 111 FPS | 15.6% (B) |
| Far Cry 5 | 60 FPS | 45 FPS | +33.3% (A) |
| Fortnite | 90 FPS | 60 FPS | +50% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82 FPS | 45 FPS | +82.2% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 73 FPS | 47 FPS | +55.3% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 33 FPS | 21 FPS | +57.1% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 46 FPS | 21 FPS | +119% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 62 FPS | 50 FPS | +24% (A) |
| Valorant | 164 FPS | 95 FPS | +72.6% (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).