GeForce GTX 1650 vs GeForce MX330

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.

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

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce MX330

#61

GeForce RTX 2070 (móvel)

MSRP: $800|Avg: $350

99%

#62

GeForce RTX 2080 (móvel)

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $350

96%

#283

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

693%

#285

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

628%

#286

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

626%

#290

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

570%

#291

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

566%

#293

GeForce MX330

MSRP: $150|Avg: $100

100%

#297

Radeon RX 780

MSRP: $499|Avg: $721

98%

#300

GeForce 940MX

MSRP: $100|Avg: $50

96%

#301

GeForce MX130

MSRP: $120|Avg: $50

96%

#302

Arc Graphics 130V

MSRP: $300|Avg: $250

96%

#303

Radeon R5 430

MSRP: $59|Avg: $50

96%

#304

GeForce MX150

MSRP: $150|Avg: $60

96%

#307

GeForce MX450

MSRP: $250|Avg: $200

95%

#308

Arc Graphics 140V

MSRP: $350|Avg: $300

94%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 234.9% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce MX330.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX330
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+234.9%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-234.9%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+100%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $100 for the GeForce MX330, it costs 25% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 346.5% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX330
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+346.5%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($75)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100)

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 Benchmark Check

GeForce MX330 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and GeForce MX330

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.

GeForce MX330

The GeForce MX330 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 10 2020. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1531 MHz to 1594 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,350 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the GeForce MX330's 2,350 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 234.9%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the GeForce MX330 uses Pascal, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 384 (GeForce MX330). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.224 TFLOPS (GeForce MX330). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1594 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX330
G3D Mark Score	7,869+235%	2,350
Architecture	Turing	Pascal
Process Node	12 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	896+133%	384
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+144%	1.224 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+4%	1594 MHz
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	56+133%	24
L1 Cache	896 KB+522%	144 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX330
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce MX330 has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 48 GB/s (GeForce MX330) — a 166.7% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (GeForce MX330) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX330
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s+167%	48 GB/s
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (GeForce MX330). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX330
DirectX	12	12
Vulkan	1.4	1.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3+50%	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs Pascal (GeForce MX330). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs PureVideo HD VP8. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce MX330).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX330
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	Pascal
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	PureVideo HD VP8
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,H.265/HEVC

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the GeForce MX330's 10W — a 152.9% difference. The GeForce MX330 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (GeForce MX330). Power connectors: None vs Mobile.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	GeForce MX330
TDP	75W	10W-87%
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	Mobile
Length	229mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C	—
Perf/Watt	104.9	235.0+124%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the GeForce MX330 launched at $150 and now averages $100. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 25% less ($25 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 23.5 (GeForce MX330) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 346.4% better value. The GeForce MX330 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).