GeForce GTX 285M vs GeForce GTX 1650

GeForce GTX 285M

2008Core: 648 MHz

GeForce GTX 1650

2019Core: 1485 MHzBoost: 1665 MHz

Performance Spectrum - GPU

GeForce GTX 285M

204

584

0.0%

GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB

GeForce GTX 1070 Ti

GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER

GeForce GTX 1650

7,869

+1247.4%

GeForce GTX 880M SLI

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448

GeForce GTX 960

GeForce GTX 1650 (móvel)

GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

GeForce GTX 1080

GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER

GeForce RTX 3070 Ti

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 285M is positioned at rank #173 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

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 285M

GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

MSRP: $399|Avg: $280

994%

GeForce RTX 5060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

955%

Radeon RX 5600 XT

MSRP: $279|Avg: $180

944%

Radeon RX 9060

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

942%

GeForce RTX 5050

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

940%

GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

MSRP: $249|Avg: $150

935%

Arc A580

MSRP: $179|Avg: $179

923%

Radeon RX 9060 XT

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

919%

Radeon RX 9060 XT 8GB

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

911%

#10

Radeon RX 7600

MSRP: $269|Avg: $250

908%

#11

Radeon RX 6600

MSRP: $329|Avg: $180

898%

#12

GeForce RTX 4060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

896%

#13

Arc B570

MSRP: $219|Avg: $219

879%

#14

Arc B580

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

879%

#92

Radeon Ryzen 7 4800H

MSRP: $450|Avg: $450

99%

#93

Radeon Ryzen 5 5600U

MSRP: $300|Avg: $300

96%

#94

Radeon Ryzen 5 5600H

MSRP: $350|Avg: $350

93%

#95

Radeon Ryzen 5 5500U

MSRP: $300|Avg: $300

92%

#158

Radeon R5 430 OEM

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $13

1096%

#173

GeForce GTX 285M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#175

Radeon R5 420

MSRP: $80|Avg: $20

98%

#176

Radeon R7 A8-7670K

MSRP: $118|Avg: $50

98%

#177

Radeon HD 6570

MSRP: $79|Avg: $79

96%

#178

Radeon HD 8370D

MSRP: $45|Avg: $10

96%

#181

Radeon HD 8310E

MSRP: $50|Avg: $50

93%

#183

GeForce GT 610

MSRP: $49|Avg: $49

93%

#185

Radeon HD 6530D

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

92%

#186

Radeon HD 8450G

MSRP: $50|Avg: $50

92%

#187

Radeon HD 4830

MSRP: $130|Avg: $20

91%

#188

GeForce GT 140

MSRP: $99|Avg: $15

91%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2008). The GeForce GTX 1650 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 285M lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1247.4% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (4 GB vs 1 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 285M.

Insight	GeForce GTX 285M	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-1247.4%)	✅Leading raw performance (+1247.4%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013))	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+300%)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 1650 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

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 285M Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 285M and GeForce GTX 1650

GeForce GTX 285M

The GeForce GTX 285M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in December 23 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 648 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 204W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 584 points. Launch price was $359.

GeForce GTX 1650

The GeForce GTX 1650 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1485 MHz to 1665 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,869 points. Launch price was $149.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 285M scores 584 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 1247.4%. The GeForce GTX 285M is built on Tesla 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 55 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 240 (GeForce GTX 285M) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 0.7085 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 285M) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	GeForce GTX 285M	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	584	7,869+1247%
Architecture	Tesla 2.0	Turing
Process Node	55 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	240	896+273%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.7085 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS+321%
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	80+43%	56
L2 Cache	0.25 MB	1 MB+300%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 285M	GeForce GTX 1650
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	FSR 3 (Compatible)
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 285M comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (GeForce GTX 285M) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 285M	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	1 GB	4 GB+300%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	Unknown	128 GB/s
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	0.25 MB	1 MB+300%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce GTX 285M) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: N/A vs 1.4. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.

Feature	GeForce GTX 285M	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12+8%
Vulkan	N/A	1.4
OpenGL	3.3	4.6+39%
Max Displays	2	3+50%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: None (GeForce GTX 285M) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP2) vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GeForce GTX 285M) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	GeForce GTX 285M	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	None	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	PureVideo HD (VP2)	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 285M draws 204W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 92.5% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 285M) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 85 vs 70°C.