NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER

The database pits two very different NVIDIA generations against each other: the Fermi-based GTX 480 from 2010 and the Turing-based GTX 1650 SUPER from 2019. The recorded benchmark data shows a decisive shift in computing capability, with the newer card winning the only shared test by a significant margin. The GTX 1650 SUPER records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 43,875, while the GTX 480 trails far behind with 13,300, a difference of 69.7 percent in favor of the newer model. This single data point frames the entire comparison, but the underlying specifications reveal a more complex story about how GPU design evolved over a decade.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is not subtle. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875, which is 3.3 times higher than the GTX 480's 13,300. The delta of 69.7 percent reflects the newer card's overwhelming advantage in this compute workload. Looking at the GTX 480's position among its nearest rivals, its average score of 13,300 places it within 0.6 percent of the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13,376), 0.4 percent behind the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356) and AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354), and 0.2 percent behind the AMD Radeon Pro 555X (13,321). These tiny margins show that the GTX 480, despite its age, sits in a crowded performance cluster in this particular test. The GTX 1650 SUPER, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 11,047 across all its recorded tests, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon RX 550 at 11,075, a negligible 0.2 percent difference. The GTX 1650 SUPER also beats the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 by 1.5 percent (10,883) and trails the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q by 0.4 percent (both at 11,088). This positioning suggests that while the GTX 1650 SUPER dominates the GTX 480 in OpenCL compute, it competes in a different performance tier overall. The percentile data reinforces this: the GTX 480 ranks at the 53rd percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 1650 SUPER sits at the 50th percentile. The newer card's raw compute lead in OpenCL does not translate to a higher overall ranking, which hints that the GTX 480 holds its own in other workload types not captured in the head-to-head dataset.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by nearly a decade of GPU engineering. The GTX 480 uses the GF100 chip, built on Fermi architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 40 nm process. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a massive 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The GTX 1650 SUPER, in contrast, uses the TU116 chip with Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process. It contains 6,600 million transistors in a much smaller 284 mm² die, achieving a density of 23.2 million per square millimeter. The transistor density difference is stark: the newer chip crams nearly four times as many transistors per area, a direct result of the more advanced manufacturing node. The GTX 480's memory subsystem reflects its 384-bit bus width of 384 bits, paired with 1536 MB of GDDR5 memory running at 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective, delivering 177.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses a narrower 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), achieving 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth despite the narrower interface. The newer memory technology enables higher bandwidth with fewer pins, a clear architectural win. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1725 MHz, while the GTX 480 lists no base or boost clock in the database, only its memory clock. In terms of compute resources, the GTX 480 has 480 shading units, 60 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The newer card has 2.7 times as many shading units, but fewer ROPs, which shapes its workload strengths. Pixel rate favors the GTX 1650 SUPER at 55.20 GPixel/s versus 21.03 GPixel/s for the GTX 480, and texture rate also favors it at 138.0 GTexel/s versus 42.06 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is where the gap becomes enormous: the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 4.416 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.832 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the GTX 480 manages 1,345.0 GFLOPS FP32 and no listed FP16 support. The GTX 480 also lacks Vulkan support in the API section, while the GTX 1650 SUPER lists Vulkan 1.4. Both support DirectX 12, but the GTX 480 is limited to 11_0 while the GTX 1650 SUPER supports 12_1. OpenGL 4.6 is common to both.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear winner for modern workloads: the GTX 1650 SUPER. Its OpenCL score is 69.7 percent higher than the GTX 480's, and its FP32 throughput of 4.416 TFLOPS is more than three times the GTX 480's 1,345.0 GFLOPS. The newer card also offers double the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 1536 MB, plus faster memory technology in GDDR6 versus GDDR5. For compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL workloads, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the obvious choice. The GTX 480, however, still holds relevance in the database's overall ranking, sitting at the 53rd percentile versus the GTX 1650 SUPER's 50th percentile. This suggests that the older card's raw specifications, particularly its 48 ROPs and 384-bit memory bus, may contribute to strengths in certain legacy workloads or specific rendering paths not captured by the single shared benchmark. The GTX 480 also has a higher transistor count per die area in absolute terms, though the GTX 1650 SUPER's density is far superior. For a user prioritizing modern API support, the GTX 1650 SUPER's Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1 are decisive, while the GTX 480's DirectX 11_0 and no Vulkan support limit its compatibility with contemporary software. The GTX 480's launch MSRP was 499 USD, and the GTX 1650 SUPER's was 159 USD, but the data does not support discussing cost-effectiveness beyond noting the recorded figures.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 480 uses the GF100 chip on Fermi architecture, while the GTX 1650 SUPER uses the TU116 chip on Turing architecture. The process node drops from 40 nm to 12 nm, and the die size shrinks from 529 mm² to 284 mm². Transistor count rises from 3,100 million in the GTX 480 to 6,600 million in the GTX 1650 SUPER, with density improving from 5.9M per square millimeter to 23.2M per square millimeter. Memory size jumps from 1536 MB to 4 GB, and type shifts from GDDR5 to GDDR6. The bus width narrows dramatically from 384 bits in the GTX 480 to 128 bits in the GTX 1650 SUPER. Memory clock changes from 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective) in the GTX 480 to 1500 MHz (1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective) in the GTX 1650 SUPER. Bandwidth improves from 177.4 GB/s to 192.0 GB/s. Shading units rise from 480 to 1,280, TMUs from 60 to 80, and ROPs fall from 48 to 32. Pixel rate climbs from 21.03 GPixel/s to 55.20 GPixel/s, texture rate from 42.06 GTexel/s to 138.0 GTexel/s, and FP32 from 1,345.0 GFLOPS to 4.416 TFLOPS. The GTX 1650 SUPER additionally lists FP16 at 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1), which the GTX 480 lacks. TDP drops from 250 W to 100 W, power connectors simplify from 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin to 1x 6-pin, and suggested PSU falls from 600 W to 300 W. Bus interface advances from PCIe 2.0 x16 to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs change from 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a to 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX support moves from 12 (11_0) to 12 (12_1), and Vulkan goes from absent to 1.4. The GTX 480 measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, while the GTX 1650 SUPER measures 229 mm (9 inches) in length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, and 35 mm (1.4 inches) in width. Release dates differ: the GTX 480 launched on 2010-03-25, the GTX 1650 SUPER on 2019-11-21. The GTX 1650 SUPER also lists a series name, GeForce 10-series, while the GTX 480 has no series designation.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the only shared benchmark test?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 43,875 versus the GTX 480's 13,300, a delta of 69.7 percent.

Q: How do the two cards compare in transistor density?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER achieves 23.2M transistors per square millimeter on its 12 nm process, while the GTX 480 achieves 5.9M per square millimeter on its 40 nm process.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The GTX 480 has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 177.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 1650 SUPER has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the GTX 480 support Vulkan?

A: No, the GTX 480 lists no Vulkan support in the database, while the GTX 1650 SUPER lists Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures for both cards?

A: The GTX 480 delivers 1,345.0 GFLOPS FP32, while the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 4.416 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: How do their percentiles among all GPUs compare?

A: The GTX 480 sits at the 53rd percentile, while the GTX 1650 SUPER sits at the 50th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 SUPER wins in the areas that matter most for contemporary use. Its OpenCL score of 43,875 is 69.7 percent higher than the GTX 480's 13,300, and its FP32 throughput of 4.416 TFLOPS is more than triple the GTX 480's 1,345.0 GFLOPS. It also wins on pixel rate, 55.20 GPixel/s versus 21.03 GPixel/s, texture rate, 138.0 GTexel/s versus 42.06 GTexel/s, and memory bandwidth, 192.0 GB/s versus 177.4 GB/s. The GTX 1650 SUPER offers 4 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 1536 MB of GDDR5, supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1, and consumes 100 W TDP versus 250 W. It is also physically smaller at 229 mm versus 267 mm in length. The GTX 480, despite losing the compute comparison, retains some advantages in the recorded data. It has 48 ROPs versus 32, a 384-bit memory bus versus 128-bit, and a higher overall percentile at 53 versus 50. Its nearest rival cluster in the database shows it performing within 0.6 percent of several AMD mobile cards, indicating it remains competitive in certain legacy contexts. The GTX 480 also has no boost clock listed, relying on its fixed memory clock of 924 MHz (3.7 Gbps effective), which may suit specific fixed-frequency workloads. For users prioritizing modern API support, raw compute, and efficiency, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the data-backed choice. For those interested in a card with more ROPs and a wider memory bus, the GTX 480 shows unique characteristics, though its age and lack of Vulkan support limit its practical applications. The database records the GTX 1650 SUPER as the winner in all head-to-head comparisons, with one win and zero for the GTX 480.