NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M is a matchup between two end-of-life mobile and desktop parts separated by seven years of architecture. The GTX 1650 is a Turing-based desktop card, while the GTX 680M is a Kepler-based MXM module from 2012. The data shows one decisive benchmark result, but the underlying specifications tell a broader story about efficiency, feature support, and generational progress.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, and it wins by a massive margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 scores 29,629 against the GTX 680M’s 9,230, a 221% advantage. That is not a close race; it is a generational wipeout. The GTX 1650’s average benchmark score of 7,472 also places it ahead of the GTX 680M’s 7,023, with the older card sitting at the 39th percentile of all GPUs while the newer card sits at the 40th.

There is no benchmark category where the GTX 680M comes out ahead. However, the GTX 680M does have its own niche: it is a portable device module with an MXM-B interface, meaning it was designed for laptops where the GTX 1650’s dual-slot, 229 mm desktop card cannot physically fit. If the requirement is upgrading a legacy gaming laptop with an MXM slot, the GTX 680M is the only one of the two that is even an option. The GTX 1650 wins every performance metric, but the GTX 680M wins the form-factor argument by default.

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 into a 200 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The GTX 680M uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, built on a 28 nm process. That die is physically larger at 294 mm² but contains fewer transistors — 3,540 million — resulting in a much lower density of 12.0M per mm². The newer process node is the primary reason the GTX 1650 achieves higher performance with a 75 W TDP versus the GTX 680M’s 100 W.

The two cards also differ in their compute pipeline. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 680M has more hardware on paper: 1,344 shading units and 112 TMUs, but the same 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer cores, the GTX 1650’s much higher clocks — 1485 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost versus 719 MHz base and 758 MHz boost — allow it to deliver 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, compared to the GTX 680M’s 2.038 TFLOPS. The GTX 1650 also supports FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the GTX 680M has no FP16 capability listed.

API support also separates them. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 680M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and the older Vulkan 1.2.175. This means the GTX 1650 can handle the latest graphics features and drivers, while the GTX 680M is locked to an earlier feature set. The GTX 1650 also has a modern display output configuration with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the GTX 680M’s outputs are simply listed as “Portable Device Dependent.”

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 1650 delivers 2.984 TFLOPS FP32, which is 46% higher than the GTX 680M’s 2.038 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the GTX 680M have any advantage in core count?

A: Yes, it has 1,344 shading units and 112 TMUs, versus 896 shading units and 56 TMUs on the GTX 1650. However, this does not translate to a performance win because the GTX 1650’s clocks are more than double.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: Both have 4 GB of GDDR5, but the GTX 1650 uses a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 680M uses a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s. The GTX 1650 has higher bandwidth despite a narrower bus.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The GTX 1650 has a 75 W TDP, while the GTX 680M is rated at 100 W. The GTX 1650 achieves higher performance at lower power draw.

Q: Can either card be used in a modern desktop PC?

A: The GTX 1650 is a dual-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card that fits standard desktop motherboards. The GTX 680M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface, which is a laptop module format and is not compatible with desktop PCIe slots.

Q: Are both cards still supported by current drivers?

A: The GTX 1650 supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), indicating newer driver support. The GTX 680M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0), which reflects its older Kepler architecture.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification field, though some values are shared.

• Process Node: 12 nm (GTX 1650) vs 28 nm (GTX 680M)
• Transistors: 4,700 million vs 3,540 million
• Die Size: 200 mm² vs 294 mm²
• Transistor Density: 23.5M / mm² vs 12.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1485 MHz vs 719 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1665 MHz vs 758 MHz
• Memory Clock: 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) vs 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective)
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 128.1 GB/s vs 115.2 GB/s
• Shading Units: 896 vs 1,344
• TMUs: 56 vs 112
• Pixel Rate: 53.28 GPixel/s vs 21.22 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 93.24 GTexel/s vs 84.90 GTexel/s
• FP32 Compute: 2.984 TFLOPS vs 2.038 TFLOPS
• FP16 Compute: 5.967 TFLOPS vs null
• TDP: 75 W vs 100 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot vs MXM Module
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs MXM-B (3.0)
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a vs Portable Device Dependent
• Vulkan Version: 1.4 vs 1.2.175
• DirectX Version: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Dimensions: 229 mm x 111 mm x 35 mm vs null (not specified)

Shared specifications include 4 GB GDDR5 memory, 32 ROPs, no RT cores, no tensor cores, no power connectors required, and both being end-of-life products with TSMC as the foundry.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a rout. The GTX 1650 scores 29,629 against the GTX 680M’s 9,230, producing a delta of 221% in favor of the newer card. That single result dwarfs the 0.3% gap between the GTX 1650 and its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, which scores 7,447. The GTX 680M, meanwhile, sits just 0.2% behind the NVIDIA T600 in its own rival list, with a 7,023 average score versus 7,035 for the T600.

Looking at the broader benchmark sets, the GTX 1650 has a much richer test history. It has been tested in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (305 points), Geekbench Vulkan (33,042), and multiple Passmark tests including G3D (7,880), G2D (561), GPU Compute (3,048), and several DirectX-specific tests. The GTX 680M only has two recorded benchmarks: Geekbench OpenCL (9,230) and Geekbench Metal (4,815). That Metal score is notable, but it has no equivalent on the GTX 1650, which lacks a Metal benchmark result.

The GTX 1650’s advantage is not just in peak compute; it also shows in texture and pixel throughput. Its pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s is more than double the GTX 680M’s 21.22 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s beats the older card’s 84.90 GTexel/s. These figures explain why the GTX 1650 scores 221% higher in OpenCL: it processes geometry and fill-rate work far faster, despite having fewer shading units.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The GTX 1650 outperforms the GTX 680M in every measurable category where both have results. It is 221% faster in OpenCL, delivers 46% more FP32 compute, has 11% more memory bandwidth, and does all of this at 75 W instead of 100 W. It also supports newer APIs, including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), which the GTX 680M cannot match. For any desktop use case — gaming, compute, or general productivity — the GTX 1650 is the only rational choice.

The GTX 680M retains one practical use case: it is an MXM module designed for portable devices. If you own a legacy laptop with an MXM-B slot and need a drop-in replacement, the GTX 680M is the correct form factor. It is not faster, it is not more efficient, and it lacks modern API support, but it physically fits where the GTX 1650 cannot go. The GTX 680M’s 39th percentile standing versus the GTX 1650’s 40th percentile is effectively a tie, but that ranking is misleading — the GTX 680M’s average score is dragged down by having only two benchmark results, while the GTX 1650’s average comes from ten tests.

Choose the GTX 1650 if you are building or upgrading a desktop. Choose the GTX 680M only if you are constrained to an MXM laptop chassis and have no other option. The performance gap is too large to justify the older card anywhere else.