NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER represent two distinct eras of mobile and desktop graphics, separated by over six years of architectural evolution. The data shows a decisive performance shift: the GTX 1650 SUPER wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons by overwhelming margins, delivering roughly 3.4x the OpenCL score and 4x the Vulkan score of the older GTX 780M. Despite this, the GTX 780M remains a capable legacy part, as its average benchmark score of 11261 is nearly identical to the GTX 1650 SUPER's 11047, a difference of just 1.9%. This seeming contradiction between raw compute wins and similar averages suggests the GTX 780M excels in certain legacy workloads while the GTX 1650 SUPER dominates modern API tests.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous for modern workloads: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior choice for any application leveraging Vulkan or OpenCL. In the geekbench_vulkan test, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50519 against the GTX 780M's 12696, a 74.9% lead. Similarly, in geekbench_opencl, the GTX 1650 SUPER posts 43875 versus 12769, a 70.9% advantage. For users running contemporary games or compute tasks that utilize these APIs, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only rational selection from this data.

However, the GTX 780M holds its ground in aggregate scoring. Its average benchmark score of 11261 places it 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (11088) and 0.3% ahead of both the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11228) and AMD FirePro W4300 (11225). The GTX 1650 SUPER's average of 11047 is 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10883) but trails the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11075) by 0.2%. This indicates that in mixed or legacy workloads, the GTX 780M can still be competitive, potentially making it a relevant option for older software ecosystems or specific professional applications.

For a buyer deciding between these two specifically, the verdict hinges on software compatibility. If the target applications are modern and support Vulkan or OpenCL, the GTX 1650 SUPER provides a transformative performance uplift. If the use case involves older DirectX 11-era titles or proprietary software that predates the GTX 1650 SUPER's architecture, the GTX 780M's comparable average score suggests it may still be serviceable, despite being end-of-life since its 2013 release. The GTX 1650 SUPER, also end-of-life, launched in 2019 with a launch MSRP of 159 USD.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The GTX 780M uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process by TSMC. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². In contrast, the GTX 1650 SUPER employs the TU116 chip based on the Turing architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 12 nm process. This newer node packs 6,600 million transistors into a slightly smaller 284 mm² die, achieving a density of 23.2M per mm² — nearly double that of the Kepler part.

Clock speeds reflect the generational leap. The GTX 780M runs at a base clock of 771 MHz with a boost of 797 MHz, while the GTX 1650 SUPER operates at 1530 MHz base and 1725 MHz boost. This nearly 2x clock advantage, combined with the architectural improvements, drives the massive performance differential. The memory subsystems also differ: the GTX 780M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the GTX 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus but achieves higher bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s due to faster 12 Gbps effective memory speed versus 5 Gbps on the older card.

Compute resources are configured differently despite similar shading unit counts. The GTX 780M has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 1650 SUPER has fewer shading units at 1280, fewer TMUs at 80, but the same 32 ROPs. The theoretical throughput numbers illustrate the performance gap clearly: the GTX 780M delivers 2.448 TFLOPS FP32, 25.50 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 102.0 GTexel/s texture rate. The GTX 1650 SUPER nearly doubles FP32 to 4.416 TFLOPS, more than doubles pixel rate to 55.20 GPixel/s, and increases texture rate to 138.0 GTexel/s. The GTX 1650 SUPER also supports FP16 at 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1), a capability absent in the GTX 780M's spec sheet.

API support differs meaningfully. The GTX 780M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. This newer API version on the Turing card explains its dominance in Vulkan benchmarks. Power and form factor also diverge: the GTX 780M is an MXM Module with no power connectors and a 122 W TDP, while the GTX 1650 SUPER is a Dual-slot card with 1x 6-pin power connector, a 100 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 300 W.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M has an average benchmark score of 11261, which is 1.9% higher than the GTX 1650 SUPER's average of 11047.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 SUPER in Vulkan compute?

A: In the geekbench_vulkan test, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50519 compared to the GTX 780M's 12696, representing a 74.9% performance lead for the newer card.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both the GTX 780M and GTX 1650 SUPER have 4 GB of memory. However, the GTX 780M uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the GTX 1650 SUPER uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with the latter providing higher bandwidth at 192.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the GTX 780M based on average score?

A: The GTX 780M's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and AMD FirePro W4300, both with an average score of 11228 and a deltaPct of 0.3%, as well as the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q at 11088 with a deltaPct of 1.6%.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a boost clock of 1725 MHz, which is significantly higher than the GTX 780M's boost clock of 797 MHz.

Q: What are the TDP differences between the two GPUs?

A: The GTX 780M has a TDP of 122 W, while the GTX 1650 SUPER has a lower TDP of 100 W despite delivering much higher performance.

Specification Differences

The following table summarizes the key specification differences between the two GPUs, based solely on the provided data:

• Architecture: Kepler (GK104) vs Turing (TU116)
• Process Node: 28 nm vs 12 nm
• Transistors: 3,540 million vs 6,600 million
• Die Size: 294 mm² vs 284 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.0M / mm² vs 23.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: 771 MHz vs 1530 MHz
• Boost Clock: 797 MHz vs 1725 MHz
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs 128 bit
• Memory Speed: 5 Gbps effective vs 12 Gbps effective
• Memory Bandwidth: 160.0 GB/s vs 192.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1536 vs 1280
• TMUs: 128 vs 80
• Pixel Rate: 25.50 GPixel/s vs 55.20 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 102.0 GTexel/s vs 138.0 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 2.448 TFLOPS vs 4.416 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: Not specified vs 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 122 W vs 100 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: Not specified vs 300 W
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.175 vs 1.4
• Release Date: 2013-05-10 vs 2019-11-21
• Predecessor: GeForce 600M vs GeForce 10
• Successor: GeForce 800M vs GeForce 20
• Launch MSRP: Not specified vs 159 USD
• Dimensions: Not specified vs 229 mm (9 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height, 35 mm (1.4 inches) width

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains two benchmark comparisons, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins both decisively. The largest margin of victory occurs in the geekbench_vulkan test, where the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50519 against the GTX 780M's 12696. This represents a 74.9% delta, meaning the newer card is nearly four times faster in this specific workload. Vulkan is a modern low-overhead API, and the GTX 1650 SUPER's support for version 1.4 (versus 1.2.175 on the GTX 780M) likely contributes to this massive gap.

The second head-to-head test is geekbench_opencl, where the GTX 1650 SUPER again dominates with a score of 43875 versus 12769 for the GTX 780M. The deltaPct here is -70.9%, indicating the GTX 1650 SUPER is roughly 3.4 times faster. OpenCL is widely used for general-purpose GPU compute, and the GTX 1650 SUPER's higher FP32 throughput (4.416 TFLOPS vs 2.448 TFLOPS) and doubled pixel rate (55.20 GPixel/s vs 25.50 GPixel/s) provide a strong theoretical foundation for this result.

Given these two results, the GTX 1650 SUPER wins the head-to-head series 2-0. There are no benchmark tests where the GTX 780M emerges victorious. However, the aggregate average scores from their respective benchmark suites tell a more nuanced story. The GTX 780M's average of 11261 is actually higher than the GTX 1650 SUPER's 11047, despite losing both head-to-head tests. This suggests the GTX 780M performs relatively better in other benchmark types not covered in the direct comparison, such as legacy DirectX tests or older compute workloads. The GTX 780M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and FirePro W4300 with near-identical scores, while the GTX 1650 SUPER sits close to the AMD Radeon RX 550 and NVIDIA GeForce MX350.

In practical terms, the head-to-head results indicate that any application relying on Vulkan or OpenCL will see transformative gains from the GTX 1650 SUPER. The GTX 780M's higher average score, however, warns against dismissing it outright for older software stacks. The GTX 1650 SUPER's launch MSRP of 159 USD and its 12 nm Turing architecture represent a generational leap, but the GTX 780M's Kepler design, with its 256-bit memory bus and 1536 shading units, still provides respectable aggregate performance in a legacy context.