GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design vs Arc Graphics 130T

Performance Spectrum - GPU

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design

50

6,309

+1.6%

GeForce GTX 1070 (móvel)

GeForce GTX 1070 Ti

GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8GB

Arc Graphics 130T

15

6,208

0.0%

Arc 8-Core iGPU

Arc Graphics 130V

Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arc)

Arc A770M

Arc B580

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 GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is positioned at rank 65 and the Arc Graphics 130T is on rank 239, so the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design

#19

Radeon RX 5600

MSRP: $229|Avg: $150

98%

#22

Radeon RX 7700

MSRP: $449|Avg: $399

94%

#55

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

206%

#57

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

187%

#58

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

187%

#62

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

170%

#63

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

169%

#65

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

100%

#66

GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

100%

#68

GeForce GTX 850M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $40

97%

#78

Radeon HD 8970M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $170

92%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Arc Graphics 130T

#54

Radeon RX 6800S

MSRP: $800|Avg: $800

96%

#229

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

525%

#231

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

476%

#232

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

474%

#236

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

431%

#237

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

428%

#239

Arc Graphics 130T

MSRP: $300|Avg: $250

100%

#240

GeForce MX570 A

MSRP: $300|Avg: $300

100%

#242

GeForce GT 645

MSRP: $99|Avg: $15

98%

#252

GeForce 720A

MSRP: $30|Avg: $30

93%

#253

GeForce GT 520M

MSRP: $60|Avg: N/A

91%

#254

Radeon Vega 8 Ryzen 3 3200GE

MSRP: $99|Avg: $60

91%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

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	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	Arc Graphics 130T
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+1.6%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.6%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	Xe+ (2025) (Standard Node)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+100+%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
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	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	Arc Graphics 130T
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+154.1%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($100)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($250)

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.

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design Benchmark Check

Arc Graphics 130T Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design and Arc Graphics 130T

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 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.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design scores 6,309 and the Arc Graphics 130T reaches 6,208 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is built on Turing while the Arc Graphics 130T uses Xe+. Shader units: 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 7 (Arc Graphics 130T).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	Arc Graphics 130T
G3D Mark Score	6,309+2%	6,208
Architecture	Turing	Xe+
Shading Units	1024+14529%	7

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	Arc Graphics 130T
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 Graphics 130T has 0 MB. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs System.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	Arc Graphics 130T
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	Shared
Memory Type	GDDR5	Shared
Memory Bandwidth	112 GB/s	System
Bus Width	128-bit	System

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 12.2 (Arc Graphics 130T). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	Arc Graphics 130T
DirectX	12 (12_1)	12.2+2%
Vulkan	1.3	1.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	4+33%	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs Xe Media Engine (Arc Graphics 130T). 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 H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1,H.266 (Arc Graphics 130T).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	Arc Graphics 130T
Encoder	NVENC (Turing)	Xe Media Engine
Decoder	NVDEC (4th Gen)	Xe Media Engine
Codecs	H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit	H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1,H.266

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design draws 50W versus the Arc Graphics 130T's 15W — a 107.7% difference. The Arc Graphics 130T is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 350W (Arc Graphics 130T). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Integrated. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 85°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	Arc Graphics 130T
TDP	50W	15W-70%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	Integrated
Length	—	0mm
Height	—	0mm
Slots	0	0
Temp (Load)	75°C-12%	85°C
Perf/Watt	126.2	413.9+228%

💰

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): 63.1 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 24.8 (Arc Graphics 130T) — the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers 154.4% better value. The Arc Graphics 130T is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2020).