NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two NVIDIA parts, but the comparison is complicated by the fact that only one shared test exists in the dataset. In the single head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 delivers a score of 29,629 against the GTX 880M’s 5,622. That represents a delta of -81% for the older card, meaning the GTX 1650 is roughly five times faster in raw compute throughput under this workload. This is not a close contest; the Turing-based card dominates the Kepler-based mobile part by an enormous margin.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the GTX 880M actually posts a higher aggregate figure of 8,040 versus the GTX 1650’s 7,472. This inversion is notable because the two cards’ percentile rankings among all GPUs are similarly close: the GTX 880M sits at the 42nd percentile, while the GTX 1650 is at the 40th. The average score gap is only about 7.6% in favor of the older chip, which suggests that in some workloads—particularly those that stress memory bandwidth or specific legacy API paths—the 880M holds its own despite its age.

The GTX 1650’s nearest rivals in the database underscore its positioning. It sits within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, 0.4% of the Intel UHD Graphics 750, and 0.6% of the AMD Radeon R7 350, while trailing the Intel Arc A310 by 1%. These are tight margins, indicating that the GTX 1650 occupies a crowded mid-range space where small architectural advantages translate into minor score differences.

For the GTX 880M, the rival list is equally telling. It matches the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 within 0.0%, trails the GTX 650 Ti by 0.2%, the GTX 650 Ti Boost by 0.3%, and the GRID K2 by 0.5%. The 880M’s average score of 8,040 places it in company with older desktop parts that were themselves mid-range offerings at their launch. The fact that a mobile GPU from 2014 can trade blows with those desktop cards speaks to how aggressively the 880M was configured for its time.

The single head-to-head result is decisive, though. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650’s 29,629 score is an absolute blowout. That workload heavily favors the newer architecture’s compute capabilities, and the 5.9x advantage (calculated from the -81% delta) leaves no ambiguity about which card excels at general-purpose GPU compute.

# Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 owns the compute-heavy space. Its Geekbench OpenCL result of 29,629 dwarfs the 880M’s 5,622, and the 81% delta is the largest margin in any metric shared between the two. For anyone running OpenCL-accelerated applications—think video encoding, physics simulation, or machine learning inference—the Turing card is the only rational choice. The GTX 1650 also shows strong API versatility in its own benchmark suite: it posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 33,042, a Passmark G3D score of 7,880, and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 3,048. Those numbers are not directly comparable to the 880M because the older card lacks those specific test entries, but they paint a picture of a GPU that handles modern graphics APIs with confidence.

The GTX 880M, by contrast, wins on the aggregate average benchmark score. Its 8,040 average tops the GTX 1650’s 7,472, and its percentile rank of 42 beats the 40th percentile of its rival. This is a subtle victory, but it suggests that in legacy DirectX workloads or memory-bandwidth-bound scenarios, the 880M’s 256-bit memory bus and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth provide an advantage that newer, narrower-bus cards cannot replicate. The 880M’s Geekbench Metal score of 10,458 is also respectable, though no Metal score exists for the GTX 1650 in the data.

Where the 880M truly makes its case is in its average score relative to its nearest rivals. Matching the Quadro P5000 at 0.0% delta and staying within 0.5% of the GRID K2 shows that the 880M, despite being end-of-life since 2014, still delivers performance comparable to professional-grade parts in aggregate metrics. The GTX 1650, meanwhile, sits in a cluster of integrated and entry-level discrete GPUs, with its closest rival being the Intel UHD Graphics 750 at just 0.4% away. That is not flattering company for a dedicated card.

For gaming specifically, the data does not include frame-rate tests, so conclusions must be drawn from compute and synthetic scores. The GTX 1650’s Passmark DirectX 12 score of 35 and DirectX 11 score of 58 indicate modern API support, while the 880M’s DirectX 12 (11_0) API level suggests partial support at best. The practical takeaway: the GTX 1650 is the card for contemporary workloads and APIs, while the 880M remains competitive only in older, bandwidth-sensitive applications.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M posts an average benchmark score of 8,040, which is about 7.6% higher than the GTX 1650’s 7,472.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 29,629 versus the GTX 880M’s 5,622, a delta of -81% from the 880M’s perspective. That translates to roughly 5.3 times the performance.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for these two GPUs?

A: The GTX 880M ranks in the 42nd percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 1650 ranks in the 40th percentile.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The GTX 880M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the closest rival to each card based on average score?

A: The GTX 880M’s closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 with a 0.0% delta. The GTX 1650’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 8850M at 0.3% delta.

Q: Does the GTX 1650 support DirectX 12_1?

A: Yes, the GTX 1650 lists DirectX 12 (12_1) API support, while the GTX 880M only lists DirectX 12 (11_0).

# Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The GTX 880M uses the GK104 chip built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. Transistor counts diverge significantly: the 880M packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, whereas the 1650 fits 4,700 million transistors on a much smaller 200 mm² die. This gives the 1650 a transistor density of 23.5M per mm² compared to the 880M’s 12.0M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the newer card decisively. The GTX 1650 runs at a base clock of 1485 MHz and boosts to 1665 MHz, while the GTX 880M operates at 954 MHz base and 993 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the 1650 uses 2001 MHz memory with 8 Gbps effective speed, while the 880M uses 1250 MHz memory with 5 Gbps effective speed.

Memory configuration is a major divergence point. The 880M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1650 has half the capacity at 4 GB, a 128-bit bus, and 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the smaller bus, the 1650’s higher memory clock partially compensates, but the 880M still holds a 25% bandwidth advantage.

The compute resources tell a different story. The 880M has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, yielding a texture rate of 127.1 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 31.78 GPixel/s. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s. The 880M has more raw ALU throughput on paper (3.050 TFLOPS FP32 vs 2.984 TFLOPS), but the 1650 adds FP16 support at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1), which the 880M lacks entirely.

Power and physical specs also differ sharply. The 880M is rated at 122 W TDP and comes as an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the GTX 1650 draws 75 W, is a dual-slot card, and also requires no external power connectors but suggests a 250 W PSU. The 1650 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the 880M uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs on the 1650 include 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a; the 880M’s outputs are portable-device dependent.

# Architecture Differences

Architecturally, these are two generations apart with fundamentally different designs. The GTX 880M is built on Kepler, NVIDIA’s architecture from 2012, while the GTX 1650 uses Turing, the architecture that debuted in 2018. This generational leap explains many performance disparities.

The process node is a critical differentiator. The 880M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the 1650 uses 12 nm at the same foundry. That process shrink enables the 1650 to pack 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, achieving a density of 23.5M per mm²—nearly double the 880M’s 12.0M per mm². The smaller process also contributes to the 1650’s dramatically lower 75 W TDP versus 122 W for the 880M.

Compute capabilities diverge in API support. The 880M lists DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning it only supports the feature level of DirectX 11 hardware on DirectX 12 titles. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which includes additional features like conservative rasterization and rasterizer ordered views. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the 880M lists Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 1650 lists Vulkan 1.4—a newer revision of the API.

Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so that is a non-factor in this comparison. The shader configuration, however, reflects different design philosophies. Kepler’s 1,536 shading units are arranged in a wider, older-style layout, while Turing’s 896 shading units are more efficient per-clock. This explains why the 1650, despite fewer cores and lower FP32 peak (2.984 TFLOPS vs 3.050 TFLOPS), delivers far higher real-world OpenCL performance.

The FP16 capability is exclusive to the 1650. Its 5.967 TFLOPS FP16 throughput (at 2:1 ratio) is a Turing hallmark that enables faster machine learning and certain compute workloads. The 880M has no FP16 support listed, limiting its utility in modern compute applications.

Finally, the memory subsystem differs in architecture. The 880M’s 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth is a legacy high-bandwidth design, while the 1650’s 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth relies on higher clock speeds to approach similar throughput. This architectural choice reflects the industry shift toward narrower, faster memory buses in the mid-range segment.