CPU
GPU
GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti 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 GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE is positioned at rank 90 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is on rank 160, so the GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is significantly newer (2020 vs 2014). The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE
The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 7 2014. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 924 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 81W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,707 points. Launch price was $2,560.89.
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti 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: 6,574 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE scores 6,707 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design reaches 6,574 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 2.657 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1200 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,707+2% | 6,574 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280+25% | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.657 TFLOPS+8% | 2.458 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 1200 MHz+16% |
| ROPs | 48+50% | 32 |
| TMUs | 80+25% | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 0.47 MB | 1 MB+113% |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB+50% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Memory bandwidth: 120 GB/s (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 192 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) — a 60% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design. Bus width: 192-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) — the GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 120 GB/s | 192 GB/s+60% |
| Bus Width | 192-bit+50% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB+50% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Decoder: 1st Gen NVDEC vs NVDEC (4th Gen). Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | 1st Gen NVDEC | NVDEC (4th Gen) |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE draws 81W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design's 50W — a 47.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 81W | 50W-38% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 82.8 | 131.5+59% |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 970XM FORCE and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
