CPU
GPU
GeForce GTX 980M
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
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 980M is positioned at rank #53 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 980M
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 980M.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 980M | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti holds the technical lead. Priced at $77 (vs $80), it costs 4% less, resulting in a 6.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 980M | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+6.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($80) | ✅More affordable ($77) |
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 980M and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
GeForce GTX 980M
The GeForce GTX 980M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 7 2014. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1038 MHz to 1127 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,353 points.
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 9 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 928 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,525 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 980M scores 7,353 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti reaches 7,525 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 980M is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,536 (GeForce GTX 980M) vs 768 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Raw compute: 1.659 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 980M) vs 1.425 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 980M | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,353 | 7,525+2% |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1536+100% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.659 TFLOPS+16% | 1.425 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64+300% | 16 |
| TMUs | 96+50% | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB+800% | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+700% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 980M | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 160 GB/s (GeForce GTX 980M) vs 192 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) — a 20% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GeForce GTX 980M) vs 0.25 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) — the GeForce GTX 980M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 980M | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 192 GB/s+20% |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+700% | 0.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (GeForce GTX 980M) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 980M | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.3+18% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 2.0 (GeForce GTX 980M) vs NVENC 6 (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP6 vs NVDEC 4. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264 (GeForce GTX 980M) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 980M | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 2.0 | NVENC 6 (Volta) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP6 | NVDEC 4 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264 | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 980M draws 100W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti's 50W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 980M) vs 0W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 0mm, occupying 0 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 980M | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W | 50W-50% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 0W-100% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | None |
| Length | 0mm | 0mm |
| Height | 0mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75 |
| Perf/Watt | 73.5 | 150.5+105% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti costs 3.8% less ($3 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 91.9 (GeForce GTX 980M) vs 97.7 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) — the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers 6.3% better value. The GeForce GTX 980M is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 980M | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $150 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $80 | $77-4% |
| Performance per Dollar | 91.9 | 97.7+6% |
| Codename | GM204 | GK106 |
| Release | October 7 2014 | October 9 2012 |
| Ranking | #344 | #633 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 980M and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
