AMD Radeon 880M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon 880M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 occupy different tiers despite their comparable average scores. The 880M wins 6 of 10 head-to-head benchmarks, including all three modern API tests (DirectX 12, Vulkan, OpenCL) and compute workloads. The GTX 1650 wins 4 tests, mostly in legacy DirectX 9/10 and DirectX 12 PassMark, plus a narrow G3D victory.

For users running current-generation titles or compute-heavy applications, the 880M is the stronger choice. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 535 versus 305 for the GTX 1650 represents a 75.4% advantage, a decisive margin in modern rasterization. The 880M also leads in Vulkan by 21.1% and in OpenCL by 5.6%, making it the better pick for API-forward workloads.

The GTX 1650 remains relevant for older software. Its DirectX 9 score of 124 versus 97 gives it a 21.8% lead, and its DirectX 10 score of 39 versus 31 is 20.5% higher. Those legacy wins are meaningful for users with older game libraries or compatibility-sensitive applications. The GTX 1650 also edges ahead in PassMark G3D (7880 vs 7615, a 3.4% margin), indicating slightly better raw graphics throughput in that specific test.

The power envelope is a major differentiator. The 880M runs at 15 W TDP as an integrated graphics processor, while the GTX 1650 is a 75 W dual-slot discrete card. The 880M delivers its modern-API wins at one-fifth the power draw, which matters for portable devices and fanless designs. The GTX 1650 is end-of-life, while the 880M is active production, so the AMD part has a longer support horizon.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in modern DirectX 12 workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M wins decisively. In 3DMark Steel Nomad (DirectX 12), it scores 535 versus 305 for the GTX 1650, a 75.4% advantage. The 880M also wins PassMark DirectX 11 with 73 versus 58, a 25.9% lead, though the GTX 1650 takes PassMark DirectX 12 (35 vs 32, an 8.6% edge).

Q: How do the two compare in compute performance?

A: The 880M leads in compute-heavy benchmarks. Its PassMark GPU Compute score is 3719 versus 3048 for the GTX 1650, a 22% advantage. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 880M scores 31285 versus 29629, a 5.6% lead. Both GPUs have similar streaming multiprocessor counts, but the 880M's RDNA 3.5 architecture delivers higher FP32 throughput at 4.454 TFLOPS versus 2.984 TFLOPS.

Q: Is the GTX 1650 better for older games?

A: Yes, in legacy DirectX versions. The GTX 1650 wins PassMark DirectX 9 (124 vs 97, a 21.8% lead) and DirectX 10 (39 vs 31, a 20.5% lead). Its DirectX 12 PassMark score of 35 also beats the 880M's 32. For DirectX 11-era titles, the 880M takes the win with 73 versus 58.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The 880M is rated at 15 W TDP as an integrated processor, while the GTX 1650 consumes 75 W as a discrete dual-slot card. The 880M requires no power connectors and uses system-shared memory, whereas the GTX 1650 needs a 250 W suggested PSU and has its own 4 GB GDDR5 memory.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 880M has an average benchmark score of 8436 across all tests, placing it at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. The GTX 1650 averages 7472, at the 40th percentile. The 880M's nearest rivals include the GTX 675MX (8427, 0.1% delta) and MX330 (8458, -0.3% delta), while the GTX 1650 sits near the HD 8850M (7447, 0.3% delta) and Intel UHD 750 (7441, 0.4% delta).

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The 880M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The 880M also features 12 ray tracing cores, which the GTX 1650 lacks entirely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single victory belongs to the 880M in 3DMark Steel Nomad, where its 535 score dwarfs the GTX 1650's 305. That 75.4% delta is the biggest margin in the entire comparison and reflects the architectural gulf in modern geometry and shading workloads. The 880M's RDNA 3.5 design with 768 shading units and 12 RT cores handles the Steel Nomad test far more efficiently than the Turing-based GTX 1650.

The second-largest win for the 880M comes in PassMark G2D, where it scores 969 versus 561, a 72.7% advantage. This measures 2D graphics throughput, and the 880M's integrated design with system-shared memory appears to excel at those operations. The GTX 1650's dedicated GDDR5 memory does not help it here, suggesting the 880M has more efficient 2D path processing.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the 880M leads 40006 versus 33042, a 21.1% margin. This test stresses modern asynchronous compute and draw call throughput, areas where RDNA 3.5 holds a clear edge. The 880M also takes PassMark GPU Compute with 3719 versus 3048, a 22% delta, reinforcing its compute superiority. PassMark DirectX 11 shows a 25.9% lead for the 880M (73 vs 58), indicating stronger performance in that API generation.

The GTX 1650's wins are concentrated in legacy APIs. Its DirectX 9 score of 124 versus 97 is a 21.8% advantage, the largest win for NVIDIA. DirectX 10 shows a 20.5% lead (39 vs 31). These results suggest the GTX 1650's older driver and hardware paths are better optimized for pre-DirectX 11 code. The GTX 1650 also wins PassMark DirectX 12 with 35 versus 32, an 8.6% edge, and PassMark G3D with 7880 versus 7615, a narrower 3.4% margin.

The overall win count is 6 for the 880M and 4 for the GTX 1650. The 880M's victories are generally larger in magnitude (75.4%, 72.7%, 25.9%, 22%, 21.1%, 5.6%) than the GTX 1650's (21.8%, 20.5%, 8.6%, 3.4%), meaning the AMD part wins more convincingly in its strong areas.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ fundamentally in architecture and design. The 880M uses RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm TSMC process with 34,000 million transistors across a 233 mm² die (145.9M transistors per mm²). The GTX 1650 uses Turing on a 12 nm TSMC process with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die (23.5M per mm²). The 880M's density advantage is substantial, reflecting the newer manufacturing node.

Clock speeds favor the 880M in boost terms: 2900 MHz versus 1665 MHz for the GTX 1650. However, the GTX 1650 has a higher base clock at 1485 MHz versus 400 MHz for the 880M. The 880M compensates with 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 1650 has more raw execution resources, but the 880M's clock advantage and architecture efficiency close the gap.

The 880M features 12 ray tracing cores, which the GTX 1650 lacks. This gives the 880M hardware-accelerated ray tracing capability, though its 15 W power budget limits practical RT workloads. The 880M also achieves higher pixel rate (46.40 GPixel/s) and texture rate (139.2 GTexel/s) despite fewer ROPs and TMUs, due to its clock speed. The GTX 1650 counters with 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate but lower texture rate at 93.24 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations are entirely different. The 880M uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "system dependent," while the GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1650's dedicated memory provides consistent bandwidth, whereas the 880M depends on the host system's RAM configuration.

Form factors diverge sharply. The 880M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The GTX 1650 is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm by 111 mm by 35 mm, with one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.4a output. The GTX 1650 requires a 250 W suggested PSU, while the 880M needs none. Bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the 880M versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 1650.

Release timing shows the 880M came later (2024-07-14) than the GTX 1650 (2019-04-22). The 880M is active production; the GTX 1650 is end-of-life. The GTX 1650 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD. The 880M's predecessor is Navi II IGP, while the GTX 1650's predecessor is GeForce 10 and successor is GeForce 20.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon 880M wins in: modern DirectX 12 and Vulkan workloads (75.4% and 21.1% leads respectively), OpenCL compute (5.6% advantage), PassMark DirectX 11 (25.9% lead), PassMark G2D (72.7% advantage), and PassMark GPU Compute (22% lead). Its 12 RT cores make it the only choice for hardware-accelerated ray tracing. The 15 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light portable devices where power draw and cooling are constrained. Its active production status and newer RDNA 3.5 architecture suggest better long-term driver support. The 880M's higher average score (8436 vs 7472) and better percentile ranking (43rd vs 40th) confirm its overall superiority in the database's aggregate metrics.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins in: legacy DirectX 9 (21.8% lead) and DirectX 10 (20.5% lead) workloads, PassMark DirectX 12 (8.6% edge), and PassMark G3D (3.4% advantage). Its 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory ensures consistent bandwidth regardless of system RAM, useful for users with slower system memory. The 128-bit bus and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth provide predictable performance in memory-bound scenarios. The dual-slot form factor with three display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.4a) suits desktop builds with multiple monitors. Its 896 shading units and 32 ROPs give it more raw execution resources for older code paths that do not benefit from RDNA 3.5's instruction-level optimizations. The GTX 1650's lower density (23.5M transistors per mm²) and mature 12 nm process make it a simpler, more established part for legacy software compatibility.