NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 occupy different eras of mobile and desktop graphics, yet the benchmark data offers a clear separation in capability. The GTX 1650 is the definitive winner in compute performance, but the GTX 675MX retains relevance in specific legacy scenarios. The recorded measurements show a single head-to-head benchmark, with the GTX 1650 delivering a score nearly three times higher than the older part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this workload, the GTX 675MX scores 10,723 points, while the GTX 1650 achieves 29,629 points. This represents a 63.8% advantage for the GTX 1650, a substantial margin that reflects the generational leap in architecture and processing efficiency. The delta percentage, expressed from the perspective of the GTX 675MX, shows it trailing by that exact figure. No other shared tests exist between the two cards, so this single data point carries significant weight in the overall assessment.

The OpenCL result is not an outlier when placed against each card's broader benchmark profile. The GTX 675MX has an average benchmark score of 8,427 across its recorded tests, which includes a Geekbench Metal score of 6,131 and the aforementioned OpenCL result. The GTX 1650, despite having a lower average score of 7,472, posts far higher peak numbers in its individual benchmarks. Its OpenCL score of 29,629 is complemented by a Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,042 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305. The discrepancy between the GTX 1650's high individual scores and its lower average suggests that some of its tests, such as the PassMark DirectX 9 score of 124 and DirectX 10 score of 39, drag the mean down, but the compute-oriented workloads clearly favor the newer GPU.

Examining the percentile rankings provides additional context. The GTX 675MX sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the GTX 1650 rests at the 40th percentile. This seems counterintuitive given the OpenCL dominance, but the GTX 1650's average is pulled lower by its DirectX legacy tests. The PassMark G3D score of 7,880 for the GTX 1650 is respectable, yet the GTX 675MX's average of 8,427 exceeds it. This means that in purely rasterization-based workloads, the older card can hold its own, but in compute-heavy applications, the GTX 1650 is in a different class.

The nearest rivals for each card reinforce this split. The GTX 675MX sits within 1.2% of the AMD Radeon R9 M375X, and within 0.4% of both the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 and AMD Radeon HD 8870M. The AMD Radeon 880M is essentially tied at a 0.1% difference. For the GTX 1650, the closest competitors are the Intel Arc A310 at a 1% deficit, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at a 0.3% advantage, the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at 0.4%, and the AMD Radeon R7 350 at 0.6%. These rival comparisons show that the GTX 675MX is competitive with mid-range mobile parts from its era, while the GTX 1650 aligns with modern entry-level dedicated GPUs and integrated graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX has an average benchmark score of 8,427, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 averages 7,472. The GTX 675MX leads by 955 points in this aggregate metric.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 29,629 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is 63.8% higher than the GTX 675MX's score of 10,723. This is the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 675MX has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with a bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 1650 achieves a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the GTX 675MX's 13.08 GPixel/s.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the GTX 675MX and the GTX 1650 have a production status of "End-of-life" in the database.

Q: What is the DirectX support difference?

A: The GTX 675MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The GTX 1650 also supports Vulkan 1.4, compared to Vulkan 1.2.175 on the GTX 675MX.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 29,629 versus 10,723 for the GTX 675MX makes it the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute, machine learning inference, and any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan. The Vulkan score of 33,042 further cements its advantage in modern graphics APIs. The GTX 1650 also offers higher texture rate at 93.24 GTexel/s versus 52.32 GTexel/s, and a much higher pixel rate at 53.28 GPixel/s versus 13.08 GPixel/s. These metrics translate to better performance in modern games that rely on high-resolution textures and complex pixel shading.

The GTX 675MX wins in the aggregate average benchmark score, posting 8,427 versus 7,472 for the GTX 1650. This is driven by its more consistent performance across legacy DirectX tests, where the GTX 1650 shows weaknesses. The GTX 675MX also has a higher percentile ranking at 43 versus 40, indicating that relative to all GPUs in the database, it sits slightly higher. For users running older DirectX 9 or DirectX 10 applications, the GTX 675MX's architecture may provide more stable frame pacing, though the GTX 1650's PassMark DirectX 9 score of 124 is actually higher than its DirectX 11 score of 58, suggesting it still handles older APIs adequately.

Memory bandwidth is a mixed bag. The GTX 675MX has a wider 256-bit bus but lower total bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s. The GTX 1650 has a narrower 128-bit bus but achieves 128.1 GB/s thanks to faster memory clocks. For bandwidth-sensitive workloads, the GTX 1650 has a slight edge, but the difference is modest.

Specification Differences

The GTX 675MX is built on the GK104 chip using the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm². The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip with the Turing architecture, also from TSMC but on a 12 nm process. It packs 4,700 million transistors into a smaller 200 mm² die. This gives the GTX 1650 a transistor density of 23.5M per mm², nearly double the GTX 675MX's 12.0M per mm².

The shading unit counts are close: the GTX 675MX has 960 shading units, while the GTX 1650 has 896. The GTX 675MX has more texture mapping units at 80 versus 56, but both have 32 raster output units. Clock speeds differ significantly, with the GTX 1650 having a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz, while the GTX 675MX has no recorded base or boost clock values. The memory clocks also differ, with the GTX 675MX running at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) and the GTX 1650 at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective).

The GTX 675MX has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM module slot with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0). The GTX 1650 has a lower TDP of 75 W, uses a dual-slot form factor, and connects via PCIe 3.0 x16. The GTX 1650 has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the GTX 675MX has no recorded suggested PSU. Neither card requires external power connectors. The GTX 675MX has portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the GTX 1650 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

The Kepler architecture in the GTX 675MX was designed for the GeForce 600M generation, with a focus on power efficiency relative to its predecessors. It supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Turing architecture in the GTX 1650 is part of the GeForce 16 series, which brought significant improvements in integer and floating-point execution, though it lacks the ray tracing and tensor cores found in higher-end Turing parts. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The GTX 675MX has a floating-point performance of 1,255.7 GFLOPS, while the GTX 1650 delivers 2.984 TFLOPS in FP32 and 5.967 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. This makes the GTX 1650 roughly 2.4 times faster in FP32 compute. The GTX 675MX has no recorded FP16 capability.

The memory subsystem differs in capacity and bus width. The GTX 675MX has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit interface, while the GTX 1650 has 4 GB on a 128-bit interface. The GTX 1650's higher effective memory clock of 8 Gbps compensates for the narrower bus, resulting in higher overall bandwidth. The GTX 675MX was released on September 30, 2012, while the GTX 1650 launched on April 22, 2019, a gap of nearly seven years.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 as the superior performer for modern workloads. Its OpenCL score of 29,629 versus 10,723 for the GTX 675MX represents a 63.8% lead, and its Vulkan support at version 1.4 ensures compatibility with current graphics APIs. The higher pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s make it suitable for contemporary gaming at 1080p, and the 4 GB memory capacity provides more headroom for larger textures and datasets.

The GTX 675MX, however, should not be dismissed. Its average benchmark score of 8,427 exceeds the GTX 1650's 7,472, and its 43rd percentile ranking is higher than the GTX 1650's 40th. For users running legacy DirectX 9 or DirectX 10 applications, or for those who value consistency across a wide range of tests, the GTX 675MX offers a stable experience. Its 256-bit memory bus, while slower in effective bandwidth, may be beneficial in specific memory-heavy workloads that favor wider interfaces.

The GTX 1650 is the pick for anyone running modern games, compute tasks, or applications that leverage Vulkan. The GTX 675MX is the pick for legacy software compatibility and aggregate benchmark consistency. The GTX 1650's launch MSRP was 149 USD, but the database records no such value for the GTX 675MX. Given the end-of-life status of both cards, the choice hinges on workload priorities. The GTX 1650 is the future-proof option, while the GTX 675MX is a capable relic of the Kepler era.