NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear winner in every recorded benchmark category shared between the two cards. Of the two head-to-head tests in the database, the GTX 1650 SUPER wins both, with no benchmark victories for the GTX 850M. This is a straightforward performance hierarchy: the newer card dominates across compute and graphics API workloads.

The GTX 1650 SUPER excels in compute-heavy workloads that leverage modern API features. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 43,875 is more than four times the GTX 850M's 9,821, indicating a massive advantage in general-purpose GPU compute. Similarly, in Vulkan workloads, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50,519 versus 8,782 for the GTX 850M, a 475.3% delta. These are not marginal gains; they represent a generational leap in raw throughput.

The GTX 850M, by contrast, has no winning scenarios in the shared benchmark set. Its strengths lie in its mobility profile: it is an integrated-class part (IGP slot width) with a 45 W TDP, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. For a laptop GPU from 2014, it provides usable DirectX 12 (11_0) support and OpenGL 4.6, but the data shows it cannot compete with the GTX 1650 SUPER in any measured workload.

In terms of broader database standing, the GTX 1650 SUPER sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 11,047. The GTX 850M sits at the 46th percentile, with an average of 9,302. The percentile gap is modest, but the average score difference is significant: the GTX 1650 SUPER is roughly 18.8% higher on average. This suggests that while both are mid-range parts in their respective eras, the GTX 1650 SUPER occupies a higher performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is fundamental. The GTX 1650 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture using the TU116 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². The GTX 850M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, with a density of 12.6M per mm². The process node difference alone, 12 nm versus 28 nm, explains much of the efficiency and performance disparity.

Core configuration differences are stark. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 850M has half the shading units at 640, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These core counts directly translate to the fill rate and texture processing capabilities: the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 55.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 138.0 GTexel/s texture rate, while the GTX 850M manages 14.43 GPixel/s and 36.08 GTexel/s respectively.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s. The GTX 850M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, but memory runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) yielding just 32.03 GB/s. That is a 6x bandwidth advantage for the GTX 1650 SUPER, which is critical for modern game textures and compute workloads.

Compute capabilities also differ. The GTX 1650 SUPER achieves 4.416 TFLOPS FP32 performance and supports FP16 at 8.832 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The GTX 850M delivers 1,154.6 GFLOPS FP32 and has no listed FP16 support. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both. API support is similar in scope: both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12_1 while the GTX 850M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0).

Physical design reflects their intended use cases. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width, requiring a single 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The GTX 850M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, no listed dimensions, and display outputs that are portable-device dependent. The GTX 1650 SUPER offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the GTX 850M has none specified.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two shared benchmark tests between these GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the GTX 1650 SUPER wins by enormous margins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 against the GTX 850M's 9,821. The delta is 346.7% in favor of the newer card. This is not a close contest; the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers over four times the OpenCL compute performance. For context, the GTX 850M's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 465 (avg score 9,294) and the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (avg score 9,313), both within 0.1% of the 850M's average. The GTX 1650 SUPER's nearest rivals, meanwhile, include the AMD Radeon RX 550 (avg score 11,075, delta -0.2%) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (avg score 10,883, delta 1.5%). The 1650 SUPER's average benchmark score of 11,047 places it just 0.2% below the RX 550 and 1.5% above the MX350.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin is even larger. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50,519, while the GTX 850M scores 8,782, a 475.3% delta. This indicates that the GTX 1650 SUPER's Vulkan driver and hardware implementation are vastly superior, likely due to the Turing architecture's improved command processor and memory subsystem. The GTX 850M's 8,782 Vulkan score is even lower than its OpenCL score, suggesting that the older Maxwell architecture is less efficient in this newer API.

These results align with the broader benchmark picture. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 10 recorded benchmark entries spanning 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, and multiple Passmark tests (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute). Its Passmark G3D score is 10,179, and its GPU Compute score is 4,477. The GTX 850M has only two recorded benchmarks, both Geekbench tests, which limits direct comparison but does not change the outcome: in every shared test, the GTX 1650 SUPER wins decisively.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is dramatically faster in Vulkan, scoring 50,519 versus 8,782 for the GTX 850M, a 475.3% advantage.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR6 memory, while the GTX 850M has 32.03 GB/s using DDR3 memory. That is roughly a 6x difference in favor of the GTX 1650 SUPER.

Q: Do either of these cards support ray tracing?

A: Neither card has ray tracing cores. Both the GTX 1650 SUPER (TU116, Turing architecture) and the GTX 850M (GM107, Maxwell architecture) lack RT cores and tensor cores.

Q: How do their core counts compare?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 850M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 1650 SUPER has exactly double the core resources in each category.

Q: Which GPU is more suitable for a laptop?

A: The GTX 850M is designed for portability, with a 45 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent outputs. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a dual-slot desktop card with a 100 W TDP and requires a 6-pin power connector.

Q: What is the DirectX support level for each card?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 850M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell |

| Chip | TU116 | GM107 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,600 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 284 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.2M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 640 |

| TMUs | 80 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 32.03 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 55.20 GPixel/s | 14.43 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 138.0 GTexel/s | 36.08 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.416 TFLOPS | 1,154.6 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not specified |

| TDP | 100 W | 45 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not specified |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Release Date | 2019-11-21 | 2014-03-11 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 10 | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | GeForce 20 | GeForce 900M |

| Launch MSRP | 159 USD | Not specified |

The GTX 1650 SUPER also has more recorded benchmarks (10 vs 2), a higher average benchmark score (11,047 vs 9,302), and a higher percentile ranking (50th vs 46th). Both cards are end-of-life products, but they represent different eras of NVIDIA's mobile and desktop lineup. The GTX 850M belongs to the GeForce 800M series, while the GTX 1650 SUPER is part of the GeForce 16 series, bridging the gap between the 10-series and 20-series generations.