AMD Radeon HD 8870M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct head-to-head comparison between the AMD Radeon HD 8870M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this benchmark, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 29,629 points, while the AMD Radeon HD 8870M scores 8,462 points. The delta percentage is -71.4%, meaning the AMD part trails by roughly three-quarters of the NVIDIA card's output. That is a decisive margin, not a close contest. To put it plainly, the GTX 1650 delivers approximately 3.5 times the raw compute throughput of the HD 8870M in this workload.

The AMD Radeon HD 8870M's score of 8,462 places it at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its closest rivals, according to the recorded data, include the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 at 8,458 (a delta of +0.1%), the AMD Radeon 880M at 8,436 (+0.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX at 8,427 (+0.4%). The only rival with a higher score is the Intel Arc A380 at 8,558, which beats it by -1.1% (meaning the HD 8870M is 1.1% slower). These are marginal differences, so the HD 8870M sits in a tight cluster of roughly equivalent mobile and entry-level desktop parts.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, by contrast, records an average benchmark score of 7,472 across all its tests, but its percentile rank is 40th. The OpenCL figure is far above that average, showing that the card's compute performance is its strong suit. The nearest rivals for the GTX 1650 include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 7,447 (+0.3%), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7,441 (+0.4%), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 7,425 (+0.6%). The Intel Arc A310 is slightly ahead at 7,550 (-1%). These deltas are all under 1%, indicating that the GTX 1650's average score is within a small margin of several older or lower-tier parts, but the OpenCL result is a different story entirely.

When comparing the two cards directly, the head-to-head data reveals only one benchmark, and the winner is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 with a delta of -71.4% against the AMD part. There are no recorded wins for the AMD Radeon HD 8870M, and exactly one win for the NVIDIA card. This is not a balanced matchup; the data shows a clear hierarchy. The GTX 1650 does not just edge out the HD 8870M, it dominates it in compute throughput, and the magnitude of the difference suggests that the two GPUs belong to different performance tiers altogether.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmarks, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins in the only direct comparison available: Geekbench OpenCL. That test measures general-purpose compute performance, and the GTX 1650's score of 29,629 is more than triple the HD 8870M's 8,462. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, such as video encoding filters, physics simulations, or image processing, the data indicates that the NVIDIA card is far more capable. The GTX 1650 also has a broader benchmark profile, with scores in 3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12) at 305, Geekbench Vulkan at 33,042, and multiple Passmark tests (DirectX 9 at 124, DirectX 10 at 39, DirectX 11 at 58, DirectX 12 at 35, G2D at 561, G3D at 7,880, and GPU compute at 3,048). None of these tests appear for the AMD Radeon HD 8870M in the database, so the GTX 1650's versatility is documented, while the HD 8870M has only the single OpenCL result.

The AMD Radeon HD 8870M, on the other hand, has no recorded wins in any benchmark. This does not mean it is without use cases, but the data does not support a scenario where it outperforms the GTX 1650. Its percentile rank of 43rd is actually higher than the GTX 1650's 40th percentile, which is curious: the HD 8870M's single score places it better relative to all GPUs, but that is because its average benchmark score (8,462) is higher than the GTX 1650's average (7,472). The GTX 1650's average is dragged down by its lower-scoring tests, particularly the Passmark DirectX 9 result at 124 and the DirectX 12 result at 35, which are not directly comparable to OpenCL. For gaming-oriented workloads, the GTX 1650's Passmark G3D score of 7,880 suggests strong DirectX performance, while the HD 8870M has no equivalent data point. The takeaway is that the GTX 1650 is the clear winner for compute-heavy tasks and likely for gaming as well, given the available DirectX benchmarks, while the HD 8870M remains a legacy part with limited recorded performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 29,629, while the AMD Radeon HD 8870M scores 8,462. The delta is -71.4% in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon HD 8870M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The HD 8870M's score of 8,462 is 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458), 0.3% above the AMD Radeon 880M (8,436), and 0.4% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427). It is 1.1% below the Intel Arc A380 (8,558).

Q: What is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650's average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7,472, with its highest recorded score being 33,042 in Geekbench Vulkan and its lowest being 35 in Passmark DirectX 12.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon HD 8870M have any benchmark wins over the GTX 1650?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows zero wins for the AMD part and one win for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: How does the GTX 1650's percentile rank compare to the HD 8870M's?

A: The GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the HD 8870M sits at the 43rd percentile. Despite the lower percentile, the GTX 1650's OpenCL score is far higher, because the percentile is based on average scores across different test sets.

Q: What is the delta between the GTX 1650 and its closest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M?

A: The GTX 1650's average score of 7,472 is 0.3% above the AMD Radeon HD 8850M's 7,447. It is also 0.4% above the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441) and 0.6% above the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The AMD Radeon HD 8870M uses a 28 nm process node, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 uses a 12 nm node. The AMD chip, named Venus, contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip, TU117, packs 4,700 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, with a density of 23.5 million per mm². Clock speeds diverge sharply: the HD 8870M runs at a base of 725 MHz and a boost of 775 MHz, while the GTX 1650 starts at 1,485 MHz and boosts to 1,665 MHz. Memory speeds are also different, with the AMD card at 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) and the NVIDIA card at 2,001 MHz (8 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is another point of separation. The HD 8870M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but its bandwidth is 128.1 GB/s. The compute resources differ as well: the AMD part has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs), while the NVIDIA part has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel and texture rates follow the hardware counts: the HD 8870M achieves 12.40 GPixel/s and 31.00 GTexel/s, whereas the GTX 1650 reaches 53.28 GPixel/s and 93.24 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 992.0 GFLOPS for the AMD card and 2.984 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card. The GTX 1650 also lists FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the HD 8870M does not document.

Physical and power specifications are only recorded for the NVIDIA card. The GTX 1650 has a TDP of 75 W, is dual-slot, requires no power connectors, suggests a 250 W PSU, and measures 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. The HD 8870M has no TDP, slot width, connector, PSU, or dimension data in the database. Display outputs are listed only for the GTX 1650: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for both. API support is similar in some areas: both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the HD 8870M's DirectX version is 12 (11_1) and Vulkan is 1.2.170, while the GTX 1650's DirectX is 12 (12_1) and Vulkan is 1.4. Release dates are far apart: the HD 8870M launched on 2013-03-31, and the GTX 1650 on 2019-04-22. The GTX 1650 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD, while the HD 8870M has none recorded.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon HD 8870M is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, with the chip codenamed Venus. It belongs to the Solar System generation (HD 8800M series) and has a predecessor named London and a successor named Gem System. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 uses the Turing architecture, with the chip TU117, and is part of the GeForce 16 generation. Its predecessor is GeForce 10 and its successor is GeForce 20. These architectural generations are fundamentally different in design philosophy: GCN 1.0 is AMD's first-generation Graphics Core Next, while Turing introduces NVIDIA's modern shader and compute design, though it lacks the ray tracing and tensor cores found in higher-end Turing parts (both cards have null RT and tensor core counts in the database).

The process node difference is significant: 28 nm for the AMD part versus 12 nm for the NVIDIA part, both fabricated by TSMC. This node shrink allows the GTX 1650 to pack over three times the transistor count (4,700 million versus 1,500 million) into a larger die (200 mm² versus 123 mm²) while achieving a nearly doubled transistor density (23.5M / mm² versus 12.2M / mm²). The clock speed advantage of the GTX 1650 (1,485 MHz base versus 725 MHz) is partly a result of the more advanced node. Shader architecture also differs: the HD 8870M has 640 shading units, while the GTX 1650 has 896, and the latter also has more TMUs (56 versus 40) and double the ROPs (32 versus 16). The GTX 1650's FP16 support at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1) indicates a different compute path, while the HD 8870M has no FP16 data. API support also reflects the newer architecture: the GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the HD 8870M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, though both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior GPU in every measured aspect. In the sole head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 scores 29,629 versus the HD 8870M's 8,462, a delta of -71.4% for the AMD card. The GTX 1650 also has a much larger memory footprint (4 GB versus 2 GB), higher bandwidth (128.1 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s), more shading units (896 versus 640), more TMUs (56 versus 40), double the ROPs (32 versus 16), and significantly higher clock speeds (1,665 MHz boost versus 775 MHz). Its pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s dwarf the AMD part's 12.40 GPixel/s and 31.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.984 TFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS. The GTX 1650 is also newer, based on a 12 nm Turing architecture, and supports more modern API versions (DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4). The HD 8870M is an end-of-life product from 2013 with GCN 1.0 architecture, and its only recorded advantage is a slightly higher percentile rank (43rd versus 40th), which is an artifact of its single high-scoring test rather than overall performance.

Who should pick which? From the data, anyone requiring compute performance, modern API support, or gaming capability should choose the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. The GTX 1650's Passmark G3D score of 7,880, while not directly compared to the HD 8870M, indicates strong DirectX performance, and its Vulkan score of 33,042 shows robust cross-API capability. The AMD Radeon HD 8870M, with only a single OpenCL score and no other benchmarks, is not a viable choice for any workload where performance is a priority. The database shows zero wins for the AMD part. For legacy system owners who already have an HD 8870M, the data suggests that an upgrade to the GTX 1650 would yield a dramatic improvement, but for new purchases, the GTX 1650 is the only rational selection based on the recorded measurements. The GTX 1650's launch MSRP of 149 USD is the only price information available, and it is not the basis for this verdict; rather, the performance gap and feature set differences drive the conclusion.