NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M in overall benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, while the GT 555M scores 6493. That is a 15.1% advantage for the GTX 1650 in the database’s aggregate measurement.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile, while the GT 555M is at the 37th percentile. The GTX 1650 is ranked higher, though both are in the lower-middle portion of the overall distribution.

Q: What is the only benchmark where both GPUs have recorded scores?

A: The only shared test is Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 1650 scores 29629, while the GT 555M scores 6493, giving the GTX 1650 a 356.3% lead in that specific workload.

Q: How close are the GTX 1650’s nearest rivals in average score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8850M is 0.3% behind, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 is 0.4% behind, the AMD Radeon R7 350 is 0.6% behind, and the Intel Arc A310 is 1% ahead. The GTX 1650’s score is tightly clustered with these four GPUs.

Q: What about the GT 555M’s nearest rivals?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is 0.2% behind, the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile is 0.3% behind, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M is 0.3% ahead, and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 is 0.9% ahead. The GT 555M’s average score is also very close to its nearest competitors.

Q: Which GPU has more wins in direct head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1650 wins the single head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL. The GT 555M has zero wins in the recorded head-to-head tests.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 dominates the only direct comparison available. In Geekbench OpenCL, it delivers 29629 points versus 6493 points, a 356.3% margin. This is not a narrow victory; it is a generational gap. The GTX 1650 is faster by a factor of roughly 4.5 in that compute-oriented test.

The GT 555M does not win any recorded benchmark in the head-to-head set. Its only standalone benchmark is also Geekbench OpenCL, where it posts 6493 points. The GTX 1650 has a full slate of additional tests, including Passmark G3D (7880), Passmark G2D (561), Passmark DirectX 9 (124), Passmark DirectX 10 (39), Passmark DirectX 11 (58), Passmark DirectX 12 (35), Passmark GPU Compute (3048), Geekbench Vulkan (33042), and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (305). The GT 555M has no recorded scores in any of these workloads.

For use cases, the data implies the GTX 1650 is the only viable option for modern DirectX 12 or Vulkan workloads, given it has scores in those categories and the GT 555M does not. The GT 555M’s lone OpenCL score is far below the GTX 1650’s OpenCL score, so even in compute tasks the older GPU falls far behind. The GT 555M’s only possible niche would be legacy applications, but the database provides no evidence of any workload where it comes out ahead.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip, built on the Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The GT 555M uses the GF106 chip, based on the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9M per mm².

The process node difference is stark: 12 nm versus 40 nm. That is a 28 nm gap, which explains why the GTX 1650 packs nearly four times as many transistors into a smaller die. The GT 555M’s die is actually 38 mm² larger, but it holds 3,530 million fewer transistors. The density difference, 23.5M versus 4.9M per mm², shows how much more efficient the newer fabrication process is.

The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The GT 555M has 144 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 1650 has more than six times the shading units and more than double the TMUs and ROPs. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GT 555M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. That means the GT 555M cannot run Vulkan titles, which is a significant limitation for modern games. The DirectX feature level also differs: 12_1 versus 11_0, so the GT 555M lacks some of the newer DirectX 12 features.

The GTX 1650’s memory clock runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the GT 555M’s memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The GTX 1650 uses GDDR5 memory, while the GT 555M uses DDR3. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of memory, the GT 555M has 1024 MB. Both have a 128 bit memory bus, but the GTX 1650’s bandwidth is 128.1 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s for the GT 555M. That is a 4.4x bandwidth advantage.

The GTX 1650’s pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s. The GT 555M’s pixel rate is 3.540 GPixel/s and texture rate is 14.16 GTexel/s. The GTX 1650 is 15x faster in pixel fill and 6.6x faster in texture fill. The FP32 compute is 2.984 TFLOPS for the GTX 1650 versus 339.8 GFLOPS for the GT 555M, an 8.8x difference. The GTX 1650 also has FP16 support at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the GT 555M has no listed FP16 capability.

Specification Differences

The GTX 1650 has a TDP of 75 W and requires no external power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GT 555M has a TDP of 35 W, with no listed power connector or suggested PSU. The GT 555M consumes less power, but that comes with far lower performance.

The GTX 1650 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, while the GT 555M uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The newer interface doubles the bandwidth per lane, which matters for data transfer from system memory.

The GTX 1650 has display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The GT 555M’s display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning it relies on the laptop’s integrated panel connection rather than fixed outputs.

The GTX 1650 is dual-slot with dimensions of 229 mm length, 111 mm height, and 35 mm width. The GT 555M has no listed slot width or dimensions, as it is a mobile chip.

The GTX 1650 has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The GT 555M has no base or boost clock listed. The GTX 1650’s memory is 4 GB GDDR5, while the GT 555M is 1024 MB DDR3.

The GTX 1650 was released on 2019-04-22, while the GT 555M was released on 2011-07-01. The GTX 1650’s predecessor is GeForce 10 and its successor is GeForce 20. The GT 555M’s predecessor is GeForce 400M and its successor is GeForce 600M. The GTX 1650 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD. The GT 555M has no launch MSRP recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 1650 scores 29629, and the GT 555M scores 6493. The delta is 356.3%, meaning the GTX 1650 is over four and a half times faster in this compute workload. This is the largest recorded margin in the head-to-head set, and it is the only test where both GPUs have scores.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the GTX 1650 has scores across nine additional tests. In Passmark G3D, it scores 7880, which is a strong result for a GPU in the 40th percentile overall. Its Passmark GPU Compute score is 3048, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 33042. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 305. The Passmark DirectX scores are 124 for DX9, 39 for DX10, 58 for DX11, and 35 for DX12. The Passmark G2D score is 561.

The GT 555M has no scores in any of these tests. Its only recorded result is the Geekbench OpenCL score of 6493, which is also its average benchmark score. The GTX 1650’s average benchmark score of 7472 is higher than its closest rival scores, but the gap to the GT 555M is much larger than the gaps to its nearest rivals. The GTX 1650’s nearest rivals are all within 1% of its average score, while the GT 555M is 15.1% behind. That puts the GT 555M in a different performance tier entirely.

The GTX 1650’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% behind), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% behind), AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% behind), and Intel Arc A310 (1% ahead). The GT 555M’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M (0.2% behind), AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (0.3% behind), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (0.3% ahead), and Intel UHD Graphics P750 (0.9% ahead). The GTX 1650’s rivals are all newer or mid-range parts, while the GT 555M’s rivals include several mobile chips from the same era.

The Verdict

The data makes the choice clear. The GTX 1650 wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 356.3%, and it has nine additional benchmark scores where the GT 555M has no recorded results. The GTX 1650 also has a higher average benchmark score, 7472 versus 6493, and a higher percentile ranking, 40 versus 37.

For modern gaming or compute workloads, the GTX 1650 is the only option. It supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GT 555M has no Vulkan support and only DirectX 12 (11_0). The GTX 1650’s 4 GB GDDR5 memory with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth is far superior to the GT 555M’s 1024 MB DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s. The GTX 1650’s FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS is 8.8 times the GT 555M’s 339.8 GFLOPS. The pixel rate is 15x higher, and the texture rate is 6.6x higher.

The GT 555M does have a lower TDP at 35 W versus 75 W, which could matter for battery life in a laptop. But the GT 555M is a mobile chip from 2011 with no recorded wins in any benchmark. Its only score is 6493 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is far below the GTX 1650’s 29629. Even the GT 555M’s nearest rivals, such as the GTX 670M, are only 0.3% ahead of it, meaning the GT 555M sits at the bottom of its own performance tier.

The GTX 1650’s nearest rivals are all within 1% of its average score, which suggests it is a competitive mid-range part. The GT 555M’s nearest rivals are also close, but the entire cluster around the GT 555M is over 15% slower than the GTX 1650. The GTX 1650 is end-of-life, as is the GT 555M, but the GTX 1650 was released eight years later and benefits from the Turing architecture, 12 nm process, and much higher transistor density.

Anyone choosing between these two GPUs should select the GTX 1650 for any task that involves 3D rendering, modern API support, or compute workloads. The GT 555M’s only theoretical advantage is lower power draw, but the database shows no scenario where that translates into a performance win. The GTX 1650 is the faster, more capable, and more future-proof part, and the recorded data supports that conclusion without qualification.