Page not found — Technical City
Page not found — Technical City
We couldn’t find such page: /en/video/geforce-gtx-1050-ti-vs-geforce-gtx-1650%23characteristics
Popular graphics cards comparisons
GeForce RTX
3060 Ti
vs
GeForce RTX
3060
GeForce RTX
3060 Ti
vs
GeForce RTX
3070
GeForce GTX
1050 Ti
vs
GeForce GTX
1650
GeForce RTX
2060
vs
GeForce RTX
3050 8 GB
GeForce GTX
1660 Super
vs
GeForce RTX
3050 8 GB
GeForce GTX
1660 Ti
vs
GeForce GTX
1660 Super
Popular graphics cards
GeForce GTX
1050 Ti
GeForce RTX
4090
Radeon RX
Vega 7
GeForce RTX
3060
GeForce GTX
1650
GeForce GTX
1060 6 GB
Popular CPU comparisons
Ryzen 5
5600X
vs
Core i5
12400F
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Core i5
10400F
Core i5
1135G7
vs
Ryzen 5
5500U
Ryzen 5
5600X
vs
Ryzen 5
5600G
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Ryzen 5
5600X
Ryzen 5
5600X
vs
Ryzen 5
5600
Popular CPUs
Ryzen 5
5500U
EPYC
7h22
Core i3
1115G4
Core i5
1135G7
Ryzen 5
3500U
Ryzen 3
5300U
Page not found — Technical City
Page not found — Technical City
We couldn’t find such page: /en/video/geforce-gtx-1050-ti-vs-geforce-gtx-1650%23crypto-mining
Popular graphics cards comparisons
GeForce RTX
3060 Ti
vs
GeForce RTX
3060
GeForce RTX
3060 Ti
vs
GeForce RTX
3070
GeForce GTX
1050 Ti
vs
GeForce GTX
1650
GeForce RTX
2060
vs
GeForce RTX
3050 8 GB
GeForce GTX
1660 Super
vs
GeForce RTX
3050 8 GB
GeForce GTX
1660 Ti
vs
GeForce GTX
1660 Super
Popular graphics cards
GeForce GTX
1050 Ti
GeForce RTX
4090
Radeon RX
Vega 7
GeForce RTX
3060
GeForce GTX
1650
GeForce GTX
1060 6 GB
Popular CPU comparisons
Ryzen 5
5600X
vs
Core i5
12400F
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Core i5
10400F
Core i5
1135G7
vs
Ryzen 5
5500U
Ryzen 5
5600X
vs
Ryzen 5
5600G
Ryzen 5
3600
vs
Ryzen 5
5600X
Ryzen 5
5600X
vs
Ryzen 5
5600
Popular CPUs
Ryzen 5
5500U
EPYC
7h22
Core i3
1115G4
Core i5
1135G7
Ryzen 5
3500U
Ryzen 3
5300U
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q video cards by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Specifications, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions, requirements, API support, Memory, Technology support.
Analysis of video card performance by benchmarks: 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.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
versus
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
Benefits
Reasons to choose NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
- Newer video card, release date difference 1 year(s) 9012 30 month20 1025 times more texturing: 69.
72 GTexel/s vs 68.02 GTexel/s - 17% more shader processors: 896 vs 768
- A newer technological process for the production of a video card allows it to be more powerful, but with lower power consumption: 12 nm vs 14 nm
- 2.1 times less power consumption: 35 Watt vs 75 Watt
- Performance in the PassMark — G3D Mark benchmark is about 12% higher : 5981 vs 5364
- About 74% more performance in Geekbench — OpenCL benchmark: 36074 vs 20678
- 2.4x more performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) benchmark: 129.465 vs 54.188
- CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) about 43% more performance: 7.884 vs 5.507
- CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) about 18% faster more: 346.467 vs 293.638
- About 9% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) benchmark: 8824 vs 8059
- About 4% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) benchmark: 35709 vs.
- About 9% more GFXBench 4.
0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) performance: 8824 vs 8059 - About 4% more GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) performance: 3707 vs 3579
- Mark3Dbenchmark performance Fire Strike — Graphics Score approximately 33% higher: 2952 vs 2219
| Release Date | 23 April 2019 vs 3 January 2018 |
| Texturing speed | 69.72 GTexel/s vs 68.02 GTexel/s |
| Number of shaders | 896 vs 768 |
| Process | 12 nm vs 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| PassMark — G3D Mark | 5981 vs 5364 |
| Geekbench — OpenCL | 36074 vs 20678 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
129.465 vs 54.188 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.884 vs 5.507 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 346.467 vs 293.638 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8824 vs 8059 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) | 3707 vs 3579 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8824 vs 8059 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 3707 vs 3579 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score | 2952 vs 2219 |
Reasons to choose NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
- About 13% more core clock: 1152 MHz vs 1020 MHz 3.
5 times more memory: 7008 MHz vs 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) - Performance in PassMark — G2D Mark benchmark is about 15% higher: 363 vs 317
- CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) about 11% more performance: 1159.046 vs 1046.522
- CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) about 4% more performance: 82.067 vs 78.585
| Core clock | 1152 MHz vs 1020 MHz |
| Boost core clock | 1417 MHz vs 1245 MHz |
| Memory frequency | 7008 MHz vs 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) |
| PassMark — G2D Mark | 363 vs 317 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1159. 046 vs 1046.522 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 82.067 vs 78.585 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3352 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3352 |
Benchmark comparison
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
| 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 |
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — G3D Mark | 5981 | 5364 |
| PassMark — G2D Mark | 317 | 363 |
| Geekbench — OpenCL | 36074 | 20678 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
129.465 | 54.188 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1046.522 | 1159.046 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.884 | 5.507 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 78.585 | 82.067 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 346.467 | 293.638 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8824 | 8059 |
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) |
3707 | 3579 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8824 | 8059 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 3707 | 3579 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score | 2952 | 2219 |
Performance comparison
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
| Codename | TU117 | GP107 |
| Production date | April 23, 2019 | January 3, 2018 |
| Place in the ranking | 336 | 393 |
| Type | Laptop | Laptop |
| Boost core clock | 1245MHz | 1417MHz |
| Core frequency | 1020MHz | 1152MHz |
| Process | 12nm | 14nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 69. 72GFLOPS |
|
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 4.462 TFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 2.231TFLOPS | |
| Number of shaders | 896 | 768 |
| Pixel fill rate | 39.84 GPixel/s | |
| Texturing speed | 69.72 GTexel/s | 68.02 GTexel/s |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Number of transistors | 4700 million | 3,300 million |
| Floating point performance | 2. 177 gflops |
|
| Video connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | ||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Notebook size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Additional power connectors | None | |
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4. 6 |
4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulcan | ||
| Maximum memory size | 4GB | 4GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 112.1 GB/s |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory frequency | 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) | 7008 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
| Multi-monitor support | ||
| Multi-Projection | ||
| VR Ready |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs GeForce GTX 1650 | Render.
ru
Roman Makarov 2
Site user
#1
#1
Please tell me, I’m building a budget computer to work with print design, that is, I mainly work in Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, Corel. Perhaps, in the future, I will try to learn how to work with 3D. The question arose, which video card is better to take in the price segment up to 10k. I chose these 2 models (GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 1650) but I can’t figure out which one is better to choose
Vadik Salsky (GreatWhiteShark)
Expert
#2
#2
Of course 1650, firstly, it has WHERE more cores, and secondly, they are faster.
it is already in Turing and not in Pascal.
Ylana
Expert
#3
#3
Vadik Salsky (GreatWhiteShark) said:
Of course 1650
Click to expand…
It’s undeniable!
Vadik Salsky (GreatWhiteShark) said:
it’s already Turing and not Pascal
Click to expand…
Well, that’s not an indicator.
There are also cards for Pascal which tucks some Turing into the belt.
It ( GTX 1650 ) is faster and better than GTX 1050Ti
in a number of ways
Vadik Salsky (GreatWhiteShark)
Expert
#4
#4
Ylana said:
Well, that’s not an indicator.