GeForce GTX 1650 vs Mobility Radeon HD 4670

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 Mobility Radeon HD 4670

#408

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

1571%

#410

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

1424%

#411

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

1421%

#415

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

1292%

#416

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

1283%

#418

Mobility Radeon HD 4670

MSRP: $67|Avg: $20

100%

#419

Radeon HD 8570D + HD 8570 Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $15

100%

#420

Radeon R9 M385

MSRP: $300|Avg: $60

99%

#421

Radeon R5 235

MSRP: $49|Avg: $49

99%

#422

Radeon R9 M375X

MSRP: $250|Avg: $50

99%

#423

Radeon HD 6620G

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

99%

#424

Radeon R5 310

MSRP: $49|Avg: $15

98%

#425

Radeon HD 7690M XT

MSRP: $150|Avg: $40

97%

#426

Radeon HD 7600G

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

97%

#427

Radeon R7 A265

MSRP: $149|Avg: $149

97%

#428

Radeon R9 M470

MSRP: $350|Avg: $80

96%

#429

Radeon R9 M385X

MSRP: $300|Avg: $300

96%

#431

Mobility Radeon HD 5570

MSRP: $80|Avg: $20

95%

#432

Radeon R5 M430

MSRP: $99|Avg: $20

95%

#433

GeForce 810A

MSRP: $100|Avg: $20

95%

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 2009). 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 Mobility Radeon HD 4670 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 1599.6% 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 Mobility Radeon HD 4670.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Mobility Radeon HD 4670
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+1599.6%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-1599.6%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2009 / TeraScale (2005−2013))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+300%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $20), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 353.2% better value per dollar than the Mobility Radeon HD 4670.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Mobility Radeon HD 4670
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+353.2%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($20)

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

Mobility Radeon HD 4670 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Mobility Radeon HD 4670

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.

Mobility Radeon HD 4670

The Mobility Radeon HD 4670 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 9 2009. It features the TeraScale architecture. The core clock speed is 550 MHz. It has 800 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 463 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Mobility Radeon HD 4670's 463 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 1599.6%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Mobility Radeon HD 4670 uses TeraScale, both on 12 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 800 (Mobility Radeon HD 4670). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.88 TFLOPS (Mobility Radeon HD 4670).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Mobility Radeon HD 4670
G3D Mark Score	7,869+1600%	463
Architecture	Turing	TeraScale
Process Node	12 nm	55 nm
Shading Units	896+12%	800
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+239%	0.88 TFLOPS
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	56+40%	40
L1 Cache	896 KB+460%	160 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Mobility Radeon HD 4670
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Mobility Radeon HD 4670 has 1 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.25 MB (Mobility Radeon HD 4670) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Mobility Radeon HD 4670
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+300%	1 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	Unknown
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 10.1 (Mobility Radeon HD 4670). Vulkan: 1.4 vs N/A. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Mobility Radeon HD 4670
DirectX	12+19%	10.1
Vulkan	1.4	N/A
OpenGL	4.6+39%	3.3
Max Displays	3+50%	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs None (Mobility Radeon HD 4670). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 2.2. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (Mobility Radeon HD 4670).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Mobility Radeon HD 4670
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	None
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 2.2
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Mobility Radeon HD 4670's 30W — a 85.7% difference. The Mobility Radeon HD 4670 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Mobility Radeon HD 4670). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 70.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Mobility Radeon HD 4670
TDP	75W	30W-60%
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	0mm
Height	111mm	0mm
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C	70
Perf/Watt	104.9+581%	15.4

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Mobility Radeon HD 4670 launched at $67 and now averages $20. The Mobility Radeon HD 4670 costs 73.3% less ($55 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 23.1 (Mobility Radeon HD 4670) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 354.1% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2009).