GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design

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.

GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

2019

Why buy it

✅Draws 30W instead of 50W, a 20W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design

2020

Why buy it

✅1.6% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅More future proof: Turing (2018−2022) on 12nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
❌66.7% higher power demand at 50W vs 30W.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 1.6% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. PassMark G3D leans toward GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q instead at 6,314 vs 6,309, so for this question the real-game FPS result matters more than the synthetic split.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond because it comes out ahead on the available hardware-headroom signals for this matchup.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design makes the most sense today based on the pricing and value data we have for this matchup. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q has the stronger long-term case.

GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 930 MHz to 1125 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,314 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 GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q scores 6,314 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 GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is built on Turing while the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 2.304 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q) vs 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Boost clocks: 1125 MHz vs 1200 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
G3D Mark Score	6,314	6,309
Architecture	Turing	Turing
Process Node	12 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	1024	1024
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.304 TFLOPS	2.458 TFLOPS+7%
Boost Clock	1125 MHz	1200 MHz+7%
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	64	64
L1 Cache	1 MB	1 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	Upscaling support
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	NVIDIA Reflex

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards ship with 4 GB of video memory. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q and 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	112 GB/s	112 GB/s
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (11_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q) 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	GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 (12_1)
Vulkan	1.3	1.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	4	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Decoder: NVDEC (4th Gen) vs NVDEC (4th Gen). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q) vs H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Encoder	NVENC (Turing)	NVENC (Turing)
Decoder	NVDEC (4th Gen)	NVDEC (4th Gen)
Codecs	H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit	H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q draws 30W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design's 50W — a 50% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: Mobile vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 75°C.