Arc Graphics 130T vs GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Arc Graphics 130T
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. The Arc Graphics 130T is positioned at rank 239 and the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is on rank 65, so the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Arc Graphics 130T
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 1.6% higher G3D Mark score and 100+% more VRAM (4 GB vs 0 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Arc Graphics 130T.
| Insight | Arc Graphics 130T | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.6%) |
| Longevity | Xe+ (2025) (Standard Node) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100+%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $100 versus $250 for the Arc Graphics 130T, it costs 60% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 154.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Arc Graphics 130T | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+154.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($250) | ✅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 Graphics 130T and GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Arc Graphics 130T
The Arc Graphics 130T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in January 6 2025. It features the Xe+ architecture. It has 7 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,208 points.
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 Graphics 130T scores 6,208 and the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design reaches 6,309 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Arc Graphics 130T is built on Xe+ while the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design uses Turing. Shader units: 7 (Arc Graphics 130T) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design).
| Feature | Arc Graphics 130T | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,208 | 6,309+2% |
| Architecture | Xe+ | Turing |
| Shading Units | 7 | 1024+14529% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Arc Graphics 130T | 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 Graphics 130T comes with 0 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: System vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 130T | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | Shared | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | System | 112 GB/s |
| Bus Width | System | 128-bit |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.2 (Arc Graphics 130T) 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: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 130T | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.2+2% | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Xe Media Engine (Arc Graphics 130T) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Decoder: Xe Media Engine vs NVDEC (4th Gen). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1,H.266 (Arc Graphics 130T) vs H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design).
| Feature | Arc Graphics 130T | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Xe Media Engine | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | Xe Media Engine | NVDEC (4th Gen) |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1,H.266 | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The Arc Graphics 130T draws 15W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design's 50W — a 107.7% difference. The Arc Graphics 130T is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Arc Graphics 130T) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: Integrated vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | Arc Graphics 130T | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 15W-70% | 50W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Integrated | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | — |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 75°C-12% |
| Perf/Watt | 413.9+228% | 126.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design costs 60% less ($150 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 24.8 (Arc Graphics 130T) vs 63.1 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) — the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers 154.4% better value. The Arc Graphics 130T is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2020).
| Feature | Arc Graphics 130T | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $300 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $250 | $100-60% |
| Performance per Dollar | 24.8 | 63.1+154% |
| Codename | — | TU117 |
| Release | January 6 2025 | April 2 2020 |
| Ranking | #386 | #371 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Arc Graphics 130T and GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
