OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Laptop review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£170VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):50 W

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Laptop Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

5.1/10

Overall score

Score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

40%

4.3

Technical score

25%

4.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

4.3

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 96% of graphics cards
6.4

Value for money

Value for money
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 88%
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

44%

2.4

Performance

24%

2.3

Memory

12%

8.8

Power

11%

7.9

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

8.4

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 91%
4.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 93% of models

4.3

Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 93%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £170
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Laptop

Based on 213 owners sharing their experience in online comments

38%positive39%mixed23%negative

Gaming performance can be strong, though many owners report disappointing frame rates and high temperatures.

What owners dislike

  • Several owners say frame rates drop well below expectations in demanding games such as Warzone, Apex and GTA V, often falling to 30 to 50 fps even on low settings.43
  • Owners report sudden frame drops and stutters in games like Fortnite, Valorant and GTA V, sometimes lasting several seconds, even when drivers are updated.12
  • Owners report temperatures of 80 to 100 degrees Celsius during heavy games like GTA V, RDR2 and Warzone, and say the laptop throttles as a result.8
  • Dedicated graphics stays underused or bypassed7
  • Owners say frame rates fall noticeably when the laptop runs on battery, with stutter and drops to around 60 fps while the same games hold 144 fps on the charger.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Laptop

Technical score
Technical score
4.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components:

44%

2.4

Performance

24%

2.3

Memory

12%

8.8

Power

11%

7.9

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

8.4

Connectivity

4.3
Reviews score
4.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components:

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

6.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
3,573 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 3,573 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 91.7% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
7,870 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 7,870 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 89.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
2,708 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2,708 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 92.4% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
3.04 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 3.04 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 91.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
192 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 192 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 87.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.5% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
12,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 12,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 80.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12.1
This graphics card supports DirectX 12.1, which is older than on 77.2% of graphics cards and equal to 4.5% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
?
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
50 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 50 W, which is lower than that of 96.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
50 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 50 W under peak load, which is lower than 97.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
?
Board power limit
80 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 80 W, which is lower than that of 91.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
50 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
?
Weight
?
Show more

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Laptop vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 76.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (50 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    50 W vs 215 W
  • 63.6% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (80 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    80 W vs 220 W
  • 3.06x cheaper
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Laptop is cheaper than the average graphics card (£170 vs £520).
    £170 vs £520
  • 77.3% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 3.06x cheaper
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Laptop is cheaper than the average graphics card (£170 vs £520).
    £170 vs £520
  • 76.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (50 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    50 W vs 215 W
  • 63.6% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (80 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    80 W vs 220 W
  • 77.3% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 40.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,485 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,485 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 40.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models

    4.3

    Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.3 vs 7.2
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 24 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    16 vs 40
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 74.9% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (95 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    95.04 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 40.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models

    4.3

    Mark 7.7 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.3 vs 7.2
  • 44.9% lower sentiment score
    4.3 vs 7.8
  • 15.1% worse value for money
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Laptop has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.44 vs 7.4).
    6.44 vs 7.41
  • 40.7% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,485 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,485 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 24 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    16 vs 40
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 74.9% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (95 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    95.04 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 29.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,350 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,350 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 70.5% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (47.5 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    47.52 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 86.5% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    3.04 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 65.2% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (7,870 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    7,870 points vs 22,638 points
  • 75.8% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (3,573 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    3,573 points vs 14,779 points
  • 3 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2020 vs 2023).
    April 2020
    2020 vs 2023
  • 77.6% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2,708 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    2,708 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 79.4% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (6.1 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    6.08 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 79.2% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3,328 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,024 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,024 vs 4,352
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 57.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (192 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    192 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 36.8% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (12,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    12,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 95.8% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (1 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    1 MB vs 24 MB
  • 14.3% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (64 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    64 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Lower VRS tier
    This graphics card supports a lower VRS tier than the average graphics card (Tier 1 vs Tier 2).
    Tier 1 vs Tier 2
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12.1 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12.1 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.5 vs 6.8).
    6.5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 79.5% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (4,700 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    4,700 million vs 22,900 million
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (4 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    4 vs 6
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 11.4 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (46.8 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    46.8 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 32 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (32 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    32 dB vs 0 dB
  • 8 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (75 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    75 °C vs 67 °C
  • 33.3% higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (16 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    16 W vs 12 W
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

6.0
Jarrod'sTech
≈ estimated
30/12/2020
Comparison test · 1650 vs 1650 Ti, 20 games
Verdict
Not worth paying more; the Ti is less than 5% faster than the standard 1650.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
≈ estimated
29/12/2020
Laptop test · Mid-range chip
Verdict
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Laptop runs modern games smoothly at 1080p on good quality settings, but it isn't suited to VR or CAD work.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Laptop

  • Excellent for 1080p entry-level and mid-range gaming, especially for eSports titles
  • Consistently budget-friendly pricing making it a good choice for beginners
  • Efficient performance for productivity tasks like photo and video editing
  • Modern GDDR6 memory provides a slight boost over standard GDDR5 variants
  • Low power consumption (TDP) makes it ideal for thin-and-light gaming laptops

What customers don't like about NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Laptop

  • Marginal performance improvement (approx. 5-7%) over the standard GTX 1650 Laptop GPU
  • Lacks support for advanced features like Ray Tracing and DLSS found in RTX series
  • Limited longevity for modern AAA titles, often requiring low-to-medium settings
  • The 4GB VRAM buffer can be a bottleneck for newer, texture-heavy games
  • Poor value proposition compared to the significantly more powerful GTX 1660 Ti

Verdict

The Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is a mid-range laptop graphics card released in April 2020, featuring the 12nm Turing architecture (TU117 chip) with 1,024 CUDA cores, a base clock of 1350 MHz, and a boost clock of up to 1485 MHz. It is equipped with 4GB of GDDR6 VRAM on a 128-bit bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 192 GB/s with a typical TGP of 50W. Main pros include its energy efficiency, support for concurrent integer and floating-point operations, and reliable 1080p performance for popular titles like Fortnite and Apex Legends. However, it lacks dedicated Ray Tracing and Tensor cores for DLSS, and its 4GB VRAM capacity can be a significant bottleneck in modern AAA games at higher settings.

Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Laptop with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Laptop and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found