NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs AMD Radeon HD 7750M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and AMD Radeon HD 7750M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
- Videocard is newer: launch date 7 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- 2.7x more core clock speed: 1530 MHz vs 575 MHz
- 7500x more texture fill rate: 138.0 GTexel/s vs 18.4 GTexel / s
- 2.5x more pipelines: 1280 vs 512
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- 8.5x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 10165 vs 1191
- Around 8% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 750 vs 693
- Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 vs 3551
- Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 vs 3551
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 22 Nov 2019 vs 24 April 2012 |
| Core clock speed | 1530 MHz vs 575 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 138.0 GTexel/s vs 18.4 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1280 vs 512 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm vs 28 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 10165 vs 1191 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 750 vs 693 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 3551 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 3551 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 7750M
- 3.6x lower typical power consumption: 28 Watt vs 100 Watt
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 28 Watt vs 100 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 7750M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | AMD Radeon HD 7750M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 10165 | 1191 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 750 | 693 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 55744 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 178.014 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1961.932 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.169 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 109.29 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 787.025 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13569 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 3551 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13569 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 3551 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 357 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | AMD Radeon HD 7750M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 1.0 |
| Code name | TU116 | Chelsea |
| Launch date | 22 Nov 2019 | 24 April 2012 |
| Place in performance rating | 287 | 290 |
| Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1725 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1530 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 138.0 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 4.416 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 512 |
| Pixel fill rate | 55.20 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 138.0 GTexel/s | 18.4 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Transistor count | 6600 million | 1,500 million |
| Floating-point performance | 588.8 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 1xDVI, 1xHDMI, 1xDisplayPort | No outputs |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| HDMI | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 9 inches (229 mm) | |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 350 Watt | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | |
| Width | Dual-slot | |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 64 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER with others
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
AMDRadeon HD 7750M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
AMDRadeon R9 290X
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1080 (Desktop)
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1060 Mobile 6 GB
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
AMDRadeon RX 560X Mobile
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
AMDRadeon Pro WX Vega M GL
