NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear generational clash: the older, larger Pascal-based GTX 1080 dominates the newer, smaller Turing-based GTX 1650 SUPER in nearly every measured workload. Out of ten head-to-head tests, the GTX 1080 wins nine, with its most decisive victories coming in modern DirectX 12 and compute-heavy scenarios. The GTX 1650 SUPER’s single win, however, is a striking anomaly in the Vulkan API, where it outperforms its older sibling by a significant margin. The data shows that raw silicon size and memory bandwidth are formidable advantages, but architectural efficiency can flip the script in specific API contexts.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1080 is the undisputed champion of raw throughput and legacy API performance. Its wins span the entire PassMark suite, from DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, along with 3DMark Steel Nomad and OpenCL compute. The most lopsided victory comes in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where the GTX 1080 scores 1560 against the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 352, a 343.2% delta. This is not a marginal lead; it is a generational gulf in modern rasterization performance. The GTX 1080 also excels in compute-heavy workloads, posting 7614 in PassMark GPU Compute versus 4477, a 70.1% advantage. Legacy DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 performance is similarly one-sided, with leads of 42.6% and 86% respectively, indicating the older architecture’s raw shader throughput remains highly effective even in older titles.

The GTX 1650 SUPER’s sole victory is in Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 50519 against the GTX 1080’s 30398. This is a 39.8% deficit for the GTX 1080, meaning the GTX 1650 SUPER is nearly two-thirds faster in this specific test. This win is notable because it is the only benchmark where the newer Turing architecture’s efficiency overcomes the GTX 1080’s massive resource advantage. The GTX 1650 SUPER also posts a competitive OpenCL score of 43875, but that still trails the GTX 1080’s 51204 by 16.7%. Outside of Vulkan, the GTX 1650 SUPER’s performance profile is consistently lower, with its best relative showing being a 22.2% deficit in PassMark DirectX 12, where it scores 45 versus 55.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the GTX 1080 is the superior card for virtually all gaming and compute scenarios. Its 53.1% lead in PassMark G3D (15586 vs 10179) and 343.2% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 establish it as the clear choice for anyone prioritizing maximum frame rates in modern titles. The GTX 1080’s 8 GB GDDR5X memory and 320.3 GB/s bandwidth provide a substantial buffer for high-resolution textures, while its 2560 shading units and 64 ROPs deliver the pixel-pushing power that the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 1280 shading units and 32 ROPs cannot match. The GTX 1080’s average benchmark score of 11960, compared to the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 11047, reinforces this hierarchy.

The GTX 1650 SUPER is only the right choice for a narrow use case: applications that are heavily optimized for Vulkan and do not stress memory capacity. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 50519 is the single highest benchmark result between the two cards, and its 4 GB GDDR6 memory is paired with a 192.0 GB/s bus, which is sufficient for lighter workloads. However, its 4 GB capacity is a hard limitation in modern games that increasingly require more memory. For any user considering a card for current-generation gaming, the GTX 1080’s 8 GB frame buffer and superior compute performance make it the only rational pick from this data. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a legacy artifact for Vulkan-specific tasks or very old, low-resolution games.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive data point is 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The GTX 1080’s score of 1560 crushes the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 352, representing a 343.2% advantage. This test measures modern DirectX 12 rasterization, and the result indicates the GTX 1080 is over four times faster in this specific workload. This is the largest delta in the entire dataset and highlights the GTX 1080’s dominance in current-generation game engines.

PassMark G3D provides a broader view of overall 3D performance. The GTX 1080 scores 15586, while the GTX 1650 SUPER manages 10179, a 53.1% lead for the older card. This is a comprehensive metric that includes various DirectX tests, and the margin confirms that the GTX 1080’s advantages are not limited to a single API. The GTX 1080’s pixel rate of 110.9 GPixel/s, compared to the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 55.20 GPixel/s, is the underlying reason for this gap, as it allows the former to fill the screen with more pixels per second.

Compute performance is another area of significant divergence. In PassMark GPU Compute, the GTX 1080 scores 7614 against 4477, a 70.1% lead. This aligns with its FP32 throughput of 8.873 TFLOPS versus the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 4.416 TFLOPS. The GTX 1080’s 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die provide far more raw processing resources than the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1080 again leads, scoring 51204 versus 43875, a 16.7% advantage.

The sole reversal occurs in Geekbench Vulkan. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50519, while the GTX 1080 trails at 30398. This 39.8% deficit for the GTX 1080 is the only data point where the newer architecture’s driver optimizations or hardware design for Vulkan’s explicit command model yields a tangible benefit. Legacy API performance is entirely one-sided: the GTX 1080 leads by 86% in DirectX 10 (93 vs 50), 69.9% in DirectX 11 (124 vs 73), and 42.6% in DirectX 9 (211 vs 148). Even 2D performance favors the GTX 1080, with an 18.6% lead in PassMark G2D (888 vs 749).

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in modern DirectX 12 games?

A: The GTX 1080 is dramatically faster. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 1560 versus the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 352, a 343.2% advantage. It also leads in PassMark DirectX 12 with a score of 55 versus 45.

Q: Is the GTX 1650 SUPER better in any API?

A: Yes, in Vulkan. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50519 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GTX 1080 scores 30398, giving the newer card a 39.8% advantage in this specific test.

Q: How much more compute performance does the GTX 1080 have?

A: The GTX 1080 has roughly double the FP32 throughput, at 8.873 TFLOPS versus 4.416 TFLOPS. This translates to a 70.1% lead in PassMark GPU Compute (7614 vs 4477) and a 16.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL (51204 vs 43875).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 1080 uses 8 GB of GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 320.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1080 has an average benchmark score of 11960, which is 8.3% higher than the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 11047. The GTX 1080 also holds a slightly higher percentile rank among all GPUs at 51 versus 50.

Q: What are the pixel and texture rates for each card?

A: The GTX 1080 has a pixel rate of 110.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 277.3 GTexel/s. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a pixel rate of 55.20 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 138.0 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent distinct architectural generations from NVIDIA. The GTX 1080 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP104 chip fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses the Turing architecture, with the TU116 chip on a 12 nm process, also from TSMC. This process shrink allows the GTX 1650 SUPER to achieve a slightly higher transistor density of 23.2M / mm², compared to the GTX 1080’s 22.9M / mm², despite having fewer total transistors (6,600 million vs 7,200 million) and a smaller die (284 mm² vs 314 mm²).

The most profound architectural difference is in FP16 compute. The GTX 1080’s Pascal architecture offers FP16 at a severely reduced rate of 138.6 GFLOPS, which is a 1:64 ratio compared to its FP32 throughput. The GTX 1650 SUPER’s Turing architecture, by contrast, provides FP16 at 8.832 TFLOPS, a 2:1 ratio, meaning it is twice as fast at FP16 as FP32. This makes the GTX 1650 SUPER significantly more capable in workloads that utilize FP16 instructions, although the GTX 1080 still wins in FP32-heavy tasks. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as those were introduced in the subsequent GeForce 20 series, which is the successor to both cards.

The memory subsystem also reflects the generational divide. The GTX 1080 uses GDDR5X, while the GTX 1650 SUPER uses GDDR6. The GTX 1080’s memory clock is listed as 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective speed, while the GTX 1650 SUPER’s is 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed. However, the GTX 1080’s 256-bit bus width gives it significantly more bandwidth (320.3 GB/s) than the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 128-bit bus (192.0 GB/s). The GTX 1080 also has double the ROPs (64 vs 32) and TMUs (160 vs 80), which directly contributes to its higher pixel and texture fill rates.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially in nearly every core specification. The GTX 1080 has 2560 shading units, while the GTX 1650 SUPER has 1280, a 2:1 ratio. This is mirrored in TMUs (160 vs 80) and ROPs (64 vs 32). The GTX 1080’s base clock is 1607 MHz with a boost of 1733 MHz, while the GTX 1650 SUPER has a base of 1530 MHz and a boost of 1725 MHz, making the GTX 1080 slightly faster in clock speed as well.

Memory capacity and bandwidth are major differentiators: the GTX 1080 offers 8 GB GDDR5X with 320.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 1650 SUPER offers 4 GB GDDR6 with 192.0 GB/s. The GTX 1080’s TDP is 180 W with a suggested PSU of 450 W and a single 8-pin connector, whereas the GTX 1650 SUPER has a 100 W TDP, a 300 W suggested PSU, and a single 6-pin connector. The GTX 1080 is also physically larger, measuring 267 mm in length versus 229 mm, and wider at 40 mm versus 35 mm; both are dual-slot cards with similar heights (112 mm vs 111 mm). Display outputs differ as well: the GTX 1080 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 1650 SUPER provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and only 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 1080 launched with an MSRP of 599 USD, while the GTX 1650 SUPER launched at 159 USD.