
T600
Popular choices:

GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
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 T600 is positioned at rank 36 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is on rank 5, so the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar T600
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The T600 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.8% 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 Max-Q.
| Insight | T600 | GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 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 | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the T600 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 T600 and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

T600
The T600 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 6 2021. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 735 MHz to 1335 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 40W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,425 points.

GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 930 MHz to 1125 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,314 points.
Graphics Performance
The T600 scores 6,425 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q reaches 6,314 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The T600 is built on Turing while the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 640 (T600) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q). Raw compute: 1.709 TFLOPS (T600) vs 2.304 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q). Boost clocks: 1335 MHz vs 1125 MHz.
| Feature | T600 | GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,425+2% | 6,314 |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 640 | 1024+60% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.709 TFLOPS | 2.304 TFLOPS+35% |
| Boost Clock | 1335 MHz+19% | 1125 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 40 | 64+60% |
| L1 Cache | 0.63 MB | 1 MB+59% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | T600 | GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR6. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | T600 | GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (T600) vs 12 (11_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | T600 | GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: 7th Gen NVENC (Turing) (T600) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q). Decoder: 5th Gen NVDEC vs NVDEC (4th Gen). Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC (T600) vs H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q).
| Feature | T600 | GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 7th Gen NVENC (Turing) | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | 5th Gen NVDEC | NVDEC (4th Gen) |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The T600 draws 40W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q's 30W — a 28.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (T600) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Mobile. Typical load temperature: 65°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | T600 | GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 40W | 30W-25% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Mobile |
| Length | 156mm | — |
| Height | 69mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 65°C-13% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 160.6 | 210.5+31% |
Value Analysis
The T600 is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2019).
| Feature | T600 | GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $200 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $180 | — |
| Codename | TU117 | TU117 |
| Release | May 6 2021 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #378 | #383 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















