NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct head-to-head comparison between these two mobile and desktop graphics solutions: the Geekbench OpenCL compute test. In this workload, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 29,629 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M records 6,389 points. This yields a delta of 363.8 percent in favor of the GTX 1650, meaning the newer GPU delivers nearly four times the raw compute throughput of the older part in this specific OpenCL scenario. The magnitude of this gap is substantial and reflects the generational leap between the two architectures rather than a marginal improvement.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the GTX 1650’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 7,472. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M with an average score of 7,447, a delta of 0.3 percent, and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 7,441, a 0.4 percent difference. The Intel Arc A310 sits slightly ahead at 7,550, which is a negative 1 percent delta from the GTX 1650’s position. These tight margins show that the GTX 1650’s overall standing is competitive with a cluster of other mid-range parts, but the OpenCL head-to-head result against the GTX 580M is not close at all.

The GTX 580M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 6,389, which aligns exactly with its sole recorded Geekbench OpenCL result. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE at the same 6,389 average score, a 0 percent delta, and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell at 6,407, which is negative 0.3 percent. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 trails at 6,330, a 0.9 percent delta, and the AMD Radeon R7 M350 sits at 6,327, a 1 percent delta. The GTX 580M therefore sits in a performance tier that is fundamentally different from the GTX 1650, and the 363.8 percent OpenCL deficit is the clearest statistical expression of that divide.

In the recorded head-to-head data, the GTX 1650 wins the only shared test, giving it one win and the GTX 580M zero wins. The OpenCL result is a compute-oriented workload, so it emphasizes shader and FP32 throughput rather than rasterization or texture fill. Even so, the gap is large enough that it points to a comprehensive advantage across most likely gaming and general-purpose tasks, even if those specific workloads are not individually benchmarked in this comparison.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 1650 is built on the TU117 chip using the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The transistor density is 23.5 million per square millimeter. The GTX 580M uses the GF114 chip with the Fermi 2.0 architecture, also manufactured by TSMC, but on a 40 nm process. It packs 1,950 million transistors onto a larger die size of 332 mm², resulting in a transistor density of only 5.9 million per square millimeter. The older GPU has roughly 2.4 times fewer transistors packed into a die that is about 66 percent larger, which explains the density difference of 17.6 million transistors per square millimeter between the two designs.

The GTX 1650 features 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 580M has 384 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. While the newer card has far more shaders, the older card actually has more texture units. Neither GPU includes dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both rely on traditional rasterization pipelines for graphics rendering. The GTX 1650 supports FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP32 output of 2.984 TFLOPS, while the GTX 580M lists no FP16 capability at all.

The memory subsystems differ significantly as well. The GTX 1650 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 across a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 580M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 across a 256-bit bus, but the slower 3 Gbps effective memory clock yields only 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The newer GPU offers double the capacity but half the bus width, resulting in a bandwidth advantage of 32.1 GB/s. The GTX 1650 memory clock, listed as 2001 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, is far higher than the GTX 580M’s 750 MHz and 3 Gbps effective.

The GTX 1650 is a dual-slot card with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP, using a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The GTX 580M is an MXM Module with a 100 W TDP and no power connectors, also using an MXM-B (3.0) interface. The GTX 1650 API support includes DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and the GTX 580M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but lists no Vulkan support at all.

The GTX 1650 transistor count of 4,700 million is 2,750 million higher than the GTX 580M. The GTX 1650 die size is 132 mm² smaller than the GTX 580M die size, yet the newer chip carries 17.6 million more transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 580M pixel rate is 9.920 GPixel/s and texture rate is 39.68 GTexel/s, and both are well below the GTX 1650’s figures, which read 53.28 GPixel/s and 93.24 GTexel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 wins the sole head-to-head benchmark, and its broader benchmark suite shows a GPU that performs across a range of API generations. Its PassMark results include a DirectX 9 score of 124, a DirectX 10 score of 39, a DirectX 11 score of 58, and a DirectX 12 score of 35. The PassMark G2D score is 561, the G3D score is 7,880, and the GPU compute score is 3,048. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 305, and the Geekbench Vulkan score is 33,042, which is even higher than its OpenCL score of 29,629. This distribution indicates that the GTX 1650 is well suited to both compute-heavy tasks and modern graphics APIs, with Vulkan performance particularly strong.

The GTX 580M has only one recorded benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL score of 6,389. There are no recorded PassMark scores, no Vulkan scores, and no DirectX-specific results in the database. This makes a detailed use-case analysis for the older GPU difficult, but the available data shows that it sits at a 37th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the GTX 1650’s 40th percentile. The percentile difference is small, but the absolute score gap is large because the percentile is relative to the entire database of GPUs, including many older and less capable parts.

For gaming workloads that rely on DirectX 12, the GTX 1650’s PassMark DirectX 12 score of 35 and its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 305 indicate modern API competence. The GTX 580M’s DirectX 12 support is limited to the 11_0 feature level, so it cannot fully utilize the same API features. For compute-oriented tasks like OpenCL, the GTX 1650 is the clear choice given the 363.8 percent lead. For users running legacy DirectX 9 content, the GTX 1650 still posts a PassMark score of 124, showing strong backward compatibility, while no such data exists for the GTX 580M in the database.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 than the GTX 580M in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1650 scores 29,629 compared to the GTX 580M’s 6,389, a delta of 363.8 percent in favor of the GTX 1650.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, while the GTX 580M has 384 shading units.

Q: Do either of these GPUs support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No, neither the GTX 1650 nor the GTX 580M includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores in their specifications.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 580M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel rate?

A: The GTX 1650 has a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s, while the GTX 580M has a pixel rate of 9.920 GPixel/s.

Q: Does the GTX 580M support Vulkan?

A: The GTX 580M database entry lists no Vulkan support, while the GTX 1650 supports Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip with Turing architecture, a 12 nm process, 4,700 million transistors, and a 200 mm² die size. The GTX 580M uses the GF114 chip with Fermi 2.0 architecture, a 40 nm process, 1,950 million transistors, and a 332 mm² die size. Transistor density is 23.5M per mm² for the GTX 1650 versus 5.9M per mm² for the GTX 580M.

Clock speeds differ in the memory domain only, since the GTX 1650 lists a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, while the GTX 580M lists no base or boost clock at all. Memory clocks are 2001 MHz with 8 Gbps effective for the GTX 1650, and 750 MHz with 3 Gbps effective for the GTX 580M. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 580M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Shading units are 896 for the GTX 1650 versus 384 for the GTX 580M. TMUs are 56 versus 64, and ROPs are 32 for both. Pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s versus 9.920 GPixel/s, texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s versus 39.68 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 2.984 TFLOPS versus 952.3 GFLOPS. The GTX 1650 lists FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, and the GTX 580M lists no FP16 value.

TDP is 75 W for the GTX 1650 and 100 W for the GTX 580M. The GTX 1650 is dual-slot, while the GTX 580M is an MXM Module. The GTX 1650 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, and the GTX 580M uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a for the GTX 1650, while the GTX 580M is listed as Portable Device Dependent. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 580M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan.

The GTX 1650 has dimensions of 229 mm length, 111 mm height, and 35 mm width, while the GTX 580M has no recorded dimensions. Release dates are April 2019 for the GTX 1650 and June 2011 for the GTX 580M. The GTX 1650 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD, and the GTX 580M has no recorded launch MSRP. The GTX 1650 predecessor is GeForce 10 and successor is GeForce 20, while the GTX 580M predecessor is GeForce 400M and successor is GeForce 600M.

The GTX 1650 has a benchmark suite covering ten tests, including PassMark DirectX 9 through 12, PassMark G2D, G3D, GPU compute, Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, and 3DMark Steel Nomad. The GTX 580M has only one benchmark recorded, Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 1650’s average benchmark score is 7,472, and its percentile among all GPUs is 40. The GTX 580M’s average score is 6,389, and its percentile is 37.

The Verdict

The GTX 1650 is the statistically dominant choice in every measurable category from the database. Its OpenCL score of 29,629 is 363.8 percent higher than the GTX 580M’s 6,389, and its average benchmark score of 7,472 exceeds the GTX 580M’s 6,389 by 1,083 points. The GTX 1650 also carries a larger memory pool of 4 GB versus 2 GB, higher bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, and more shading units at 896 versus 384. Its pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s is more than five times the GTX 580M’s 9.920 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s is roughly 2.4 times the GTX 580M’s 39.68 GTexel/s.

For users selecting between these two based on the recorded data, the GTX 1650 is the only sensible option. It offers modern API support including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), versus the GTX 580M’s lack of Vulkan and limited DirectX 12 (11_0) support. The GTX 1650 also consumes less power at 75 W versus 100 W, and it is a standard dual-slot card with conventional display outputs, whereas the GTX 580M is an MXM module intended for portable devices with display output dependent on the host system. The GTX 580M does have a wider 256-bit memory bus and more TMUs at 64 versus 56, but these advantages do not compensate for the massive compute and bandwidth deficits.

The GTX 1650’s percentile ranking of 40 versus the GTX 580M’s 37 shows that both are mid-to-lower tier GPUs in the overall database, but the GTX 1650 achieves that ranking with far stronger absolute performance. The GTX 580M is an end-of-life product from 2011 with a single recorded benchmark, making it difficult to recommend for any modern workload. The GTX 1650, while also end-of-life, has a much richer benchmark profile and dominates the only shared test. The verdict is clear: the GTX 1650 wins the comparison decisively, and the GTX 580M should be considered only for legacy systems that require its specific MXM form factor.