CPU
GPU
GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Popular choices:
Arc A380
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. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is positioned at rank #65 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Balanced cost-benefit for your build. 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 GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Performance Per Dollar Arc A380
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 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.1%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.1%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) (6nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| 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 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+19.2%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($100) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($119) |
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 GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design and Arc A380
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design scores 6,309 and the Arc A380 reaches 6,301 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is built on Turing while the Arc A380 uses Generation 12.7, both on 12 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 1,024 (Arc A380). Raw compute: 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 4.198 TFLOPS (Arc A380). Boost clocks: 1200 MHz vs 2050 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,309 | 6,301 |
| Architecture | Turing | Generation 12.7 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Shading Units | 1024 | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.458 TFLOPS | 4.198 TFLOPS+71% |
| Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | 2050 MHz+71% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | XeSS |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Arc A380 has 6 GB. The Arc A380 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 112 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 186 GB/s (Arc A380) — a 66.1% advantage for the Arc A380. Bus width: 128-bit vs 96-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 4 MB (Arc A380) — the Arc A380 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 6 GB+50% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 186 GB/s+66% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+33% | 96-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 12 Ultimate (Arc A380). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs Xe Media Engine (Arc A380). Decoder: NVDEC (4th Gen) vs Xe Media Engine. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs AV1,H.265,H.264,VP9 (Arc A380).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (Turing) | Xe Media Engine |
| Decoder | NVDEC (4th Gen) | Xe Media Engine |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit | AV1,H.265,H.264,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design draws 50W versus the Arc A380's 75W — a 40% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 300W (Arc A380). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 59.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-33% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | — | 190mm |
| Height | — | 114mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | 59-21% |
| Perf/Watt | 126.2+50% | 84.0 |
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): 63.1 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 52.9 (Arc A380) — the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers 19.3% better value. The Arc A380 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2020).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Arc A380 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $100-16% | $119 |
| Performance per Dollar | 63.1+19% | 52.9 |
| Codename | TU117 | DG2-128 |
| Release | April 2 2020 | June 14 2022 |
| Ranking | #371 | #384 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design and Arc A380
