Arc A380 vs GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Arc A380
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Arc A380
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Arc A380 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Arc A380 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.1%) |
| Longevity | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) (6nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $100 versus $119 for the Arc A380, it costs 16% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 19.2% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Arc A380 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+19.2%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($119) | ✅More affordable ($100) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Arc A380 and GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Arc A380
The Arc A380 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in June 14 2022. It features the Generation 12.7 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2000 MHz to 2050 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 8 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,301 points. Launch price was $149.
GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 2 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1035 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,309 points.
Graphics Performance
The Arc A380 scores 6,301 and the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design reaches 6,309 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Arc A380 is built on Generation 12.7 while the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on 6 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (Arc A380) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 4.198 TFLOPS (Arc A380) vs 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Boost clocks: 2050 MHz vs 1200 MHz.
| Feature | Arc A380 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,301 | 6,309 |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 | Turing |
| Process Node | 6 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1024 | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.198 TFLOPS+71% | 2.458 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 2050 MHz+71% | 1200 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+300% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Arc A380 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | XeSS | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Arc A380 comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design has 4 GB. The Arc A380 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 186 GB/s (Arc A380) vs 112 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) — a 66.1% advantage for the Arc A380. Bus width: 96-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 4 MB (Arc A380) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) — the Arc A380 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Arc A380 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB+50% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 186 GB/s+66% | 112 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 96-bit | 128-bit+33% |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+300% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (Arc A380) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Arc A380 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Xe Media Engine (Arc A380) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Decoder: Xe Media Engine vs NVDEC (4th Gen). Supported codecs: AV1,H.265,H.264,VP9 (Arc A380) vs H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design).
| Feature | Arc A380 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Xe Media Engine | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | Xe Media Engine | NVDEC (4th Gen) |
| Codecs | AV1,H.265,H.264,VP9 | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The Arc A380 draws 75W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design's 50W — a 40% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (Arc A380) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 59 vs 75°C.
| Feature | Arc A380 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 50W-33% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 190mm | — |
| Height | 114mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 59-21% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 84.0 | 126.2+50% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design costs 16% less ($19 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 52.9 (Arc A380) vs 63.1 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) — the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers 19.3% better value. The Arc A380 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2020).
| Feature | Arc A380 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $119 | $100-16% |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.9 | 63.1+19% |
| Codename | DG2-128 | TU117 |
| Release | June 14 2022 | April 2 2020 |
| Ranking | #384 | #371 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Arc A380 and GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
