NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M Comparison

The GeForce GTX 1650 and GeForce GTX 675M represent two very different eras of NVIDIA mobile graphics. The GTX 1650 is a modern Turing-based part aimed at entry-level desktop builds, while the GTX 675M is a Fermi-based laptop GPU from 2012. Benchmark data shows a single head-to-head result, with the GTX 1650 dominating in raw compute. The following analysis breaks down the gap between these two end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 than the GTX 675M in the shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1650 scores 29,629 against the GTX 675M's 6,946. This represents a delta of 326.6%, meaning the GTX 1650 is roughly 4.3 times faster in this compute workload.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7,472, while the GTX 675M averages 6,946. The GTX 1650 outperforms its rival by 526 points, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs versus the 39th percentile for the GTX 675M.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, but at different feature levels. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 675M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). This means the GTX 1650 exposes a higher feature set for modern games.

Q: What are the closest competitors to the GTX 1650 in terms of average score?

A: The nearest rivals to the GTX 1650 are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (average score 7,447, just 0.3% lower), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441, 0.4% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425, 0.6% lower). The Intel Arc A310 sits 1% higher at 7,550.

Q: What is the closest rival to the GTX 675M?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 is the nearest competitor, with an average score of 6,830, which is 1.7% lower than the GTX 675M. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 is 0.4% higher, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M and NVIDIA T600 are 1.1% and 1.3% higher, respectively.

Q: Does the GTX 1650 support Vulkan?

A: The GTX 1650 lists Vulkan 1.4 support in its API specifications. The GTX 675M has no Vulkan support listed in the data.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear decision for anyone comparing these two. The GTX 1650 is the superior part in every measurable way. Its 326.6% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test is not a marginal difference; it is a generational leap. The GTX 1650's average benchmark score of 7,472 also comfortably exceeds the GTX 675M's 6,946, and its percentile ranking (40th vs 39th) confirms it sits in a slightly higher performance tier relative to all other GPUs.

For a modern user, the GTX 1650 is the only sensible choice. It offers a newer architecture, higher memory bandwidth, and double the VRAM capacity. The GTX 675M, with its 2012 release date and Fermi 2.0 architecture, is a legacy part. The verdict is simple: pick the GTX 1650 for any task involving compute or modern graphics workloads. The GTX 675M is only relevant if you are maintaining a vintage laptop and have no other option.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is only one directly comparable benchmark between the two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The result is a landslide. The GTX 1650 scores 29,629, while the GTX 675M scores 6,946. The delta is 326.6%, meaning the GTX 1650 delivers more than four times the compute performance of the older chip.

This single result is telling. It reflects the massive architectural and process node improvements between 2012 and 2019. The GTX 1650 achieves this score with fewer shading units (896 vs 384 is actually more, but the real win is efficiency), a much higher transistor density (23.5M per mm² vs 5.9M per mm²), and a more modern instruction set. The GTX 675M's 952.3 GFLOPS FP32 output is dwarfed by the GTX 1650's 2.984 TFLOPS, which is over three times higher. While the head-to-head table only shows one test, the other benchmark data available for the GTX 1650 (Passmark G3D score of 7,880, Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,042) suggests a broad performance advantage that would extend to gaming and compute workloads beyond OpenCL.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The GTX 1650 uses a 128-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 675M uses a wider 256-bit bus but with only 2 GB of GDDR5. The GTX 1650's bandwidth is 128.1 GB/s, compared to 96.00 GB/s for the GTX 675M.

The shading unit count is a major divergence: the GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, whereas the GTX 675M has 384. Texture mapping units also differ, with the GTX 1650 having 56 TMUs versus 64 for the GTX 675M. Both have 32 ROPs. The pixel rate favors the GTX 1650 at 53.28 GPixel/s versus 9.920 GPixel/s for the GTX 675M. Texture rate is likewise higher on the GTX 1650 at 93.24 GTexel/s compared to 39.68 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The GTX 1650 has a TDP of 75 W and is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. The GTX 675M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM Module form factor with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The GTX 1650 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The GTX 675M's bus interface is MXM-B (3.0), while the GTX 1650 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The GTX 1650 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 675M has no such figure listed.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 1650 is built on the Turing architecture using the TU117 chip fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². Its base clock is 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz, and memory runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The GTX 675M is based on the Fermi 2.0 architecture using the GF114 chip on a 40 nm process, also from TSMC. It contains 1,950 million transistors on a larger 332 mm² die, resulting in a much lower transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The GTX 675M has no listed base or boost clocks, but its memory runs at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). It supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

The architectural gap is stark. The GTX 1650's Turing architecture brings modern features like a 2:1 FP16 ratio (5.967 TFLOPS), whereas the GTX 675M has no FP16 capability listed. The GTX 1650 also has a significantly higher FP32 throughput at 2.984 TFLOPS versus the GTX 675M's 952.3 GFLOPS. These are not iterative improvements; they reflect a fundamental shift in GPU design philosophy and manufacturing capability over seven years.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 wins in every category where comparison data exists. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it beats the GTX 675M by 326.6%. Its average benchmark score is 7,472 versus 6,946, a 526-point advantage. The GTX 1650 also has higher memory bandwidth (128.1 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s), double the VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB), and a modern API set including Vulkan 1.4.

The GTX 675M's only theoretical advantages are its wider 256-bit memory bus and higher TDP of 100 W, which might suggest headroom for higher sustained clocks in a well-cooled laptop chassis. However, the benchmark data does not reflect any real-world win for the GTX 675M. Its nearest rivals (AMD FirePro M5100, Radeon R5 M240) all score within 1.7% of it, confirming it sits in a much lower performance class.

For use cases: the GTX 1650 is suitable for 1080p gaming at medium settings, light video editing, and any compute task that leverages DirectX 12 or Vulkan. The GTX 675M is only relevant for legacy applications that do not require modern driver support or API features. In short, the GTX 1650 wins in gaming, compute, and content creation. The GTX 675M wins in nothing measurable from the available data.