GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs GeForce GTX 1080
- Home
- VGA Benchmarks
- GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs GeForce GTX 1080
Relative performance
Reasons to consider GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER |
| 80 watts lower power draw. This might be a strong point if your current power supply is not enough to handle the GeForce GTX 1080 . |
| This is a much newer product, it might have better long term support. |
| Supports PhysX |
| Supports G-Sync |
| Supports ShadowPlay (allows game streaming/recording with minimum performance penalty) |
| Supports Direct3D 12 Async Compute |
| Based on an outdated architecture (Nvidia Pascal), there may be no performance optimizations for current games and applications |
Reasons to consider GeForce GTX 1080 |
| 62% higher gaming performance. |
| Supports PhysX |
| Supports G-Sync |
| Supports ShadowPlay (allows game streaming/recording with minimum performance penalty) |
| Supports Direct3D 12 Async Compute |
| Based on an outdated architecture (Nvidia Pascal), there may be no performance optimizations for current games and applications |
HWBench recommends GeForce GTX 1080
The GeForce GTX 1080 is the better performing card based on the game benchmark suite used (38 combinations of games and resolutions).
Core Configuration
| GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | GeForce GTX 1080 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPU Name | TU116 () | vs | GP104 (GP104-400-A1) | |
| Fab Process | 12 nm | vs | 16 nm | |
| Die Size | 284 mm² | vs | 314 mm² | |
| Transistors | 6,600 million | vs | 7,200 million | |
| Shaders | 1280 | vs | 2560 | |
| Compute Units | 20 | vs | 20 | |
| Core clock | 1530 MHz | vs | 1607 MHz | |
| ROPs | 32 | vs | 64 | |
| TMUs | 80 | vs | 160 |
Memory Configuration
| GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | GeForce GTX 1080 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | vs | GDDR5X | |
| Bus Width | 128 bit | vs | 256 bit | |
| Memory Speed | 1500 MHz 12000 MHz effective |
vs | 1251 MHz 10008 MHz effective |
|
| Memory Size | 4096 Mb | vs | 8192 Mb |
Additional details
| GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | GeForce GTX 1080 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100 watts | vs | 180 watts | |
| Release Date | 22 Nov 2019 | vs | 27 May 2016 |
GigaPixels — higher is better
GigaTexels — higher is better
GB/s — higher is better
GFLOPs — higher is better
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra High Quality, TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra High Quality TAA, Bahrain, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
FPS (higher is better)
Very High Quality TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra quality — DirectX12 Windows 11
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality preset DirectX 12 windows 10 x64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra quality — DirectX12 Windows 11
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Detail,16:1 AF, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Max Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Highest detail, Pure Hair On, HBAO+, DirectX 12, Windows 11 x 64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Async Compute ,Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra High Quality, TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra High Quality TAA, Bahrain, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
FPS (higher is better)
Very High Quality TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra quality — DirectX12 Windows 11
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality preset DirectX 12 windows 10 x64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra quality — DirectX12 Windows 11
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Detail,16:1 AF, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Max Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Highest detail, Pure Hair On, HBAO+, DirectX 12, Windows 11 x 64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Async Compute ,Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra High Quality, TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra High Quality TAA, Bahrain, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
FPS (higher is better)
Very High Quality TAA, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra quality — DirectX12 Windows 11
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX11, Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality preset DirectX 12 windows 10 x64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Detail,16:1 AF, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Max Quality, DirectX12, Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
Highest detail, Pure Hair On, HBAO+, DirectX 12, Windows 11 x 64
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, DirectX12, Async Compute ,Windows 10×64
FPS (higher is better)
| VS | ||
| GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Radeon RX 580 |
| VS | ||
| GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | GeForce GTX 1060 |
| VS | ||
| GeForce GTX 1080 | Radeon RX 6650 XT |
| VS | ||
| GeForce GTX 1080 | GeForce RTX 2060 Super |
| VS | ||
| GeForce RTX 2070 Super | Radeon RX 5700 XT |
| VS | ||
| Radeon RX 5700 XT | Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary |
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Desktop)
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Desktop) videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies.
Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark — G3D Mark, PassMark — G2D Mark, Geekbench — OpenCL, 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, 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).
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
Buy on Amazon
vs
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Desktop)
Buy on Amazon
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 5 month(s) later
- 497.7x more texture fill rate: 138.0 GTexel/s vs 277.3 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 16 nm
- Around 80% lower typical power consumption: 100 Watt vs 180 Watt
- Around 21% better performance in Geekbench — OpenCL: 55816 vs 46100
- 3.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s): 89.343 vs 27.417
- Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 13569 vs 11173
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames): 3715 vs 3690
- Around 21% better performance in GFXBench 4.
0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 13569 vs 11173 - Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps): 3715 vs 3690
| Launch date | 22 Nov 2019 vs 27 May 2016 |
| Texture fill rate | 138.0 GTexel/s vs 277.3 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm vs 16 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt vs 180 Watt |
| Geekbench — OpenCL | 55816 vs 46100 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 89.343 vs 27.417 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13569 vs 11173 |
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) |
3715 vs 3690 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 vs 3343 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13569 vs 11173 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 3690 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 vs 3343 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Desktop)
- Around 5% higher core clock speed: 1607 MHz vs 1530 MHz
- 2x more pipelines: 2560 vs 1280
- 2x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 4 GB
- Around 53% better performance in PassMark — G3D Mark: 15489 vs 10108
- Around 18% better performance in PassMark — G2D Mark: 895 vs 757
- Around 4% better performance in CompuBench 1.
5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 819.934 vs 787.025 - Around 61% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score: 7544 vs 4689
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz vs 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz vs 1725 MHz |
| Pipelines | 2560 vs 1280 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 4 GB |
| PassMark — G3D Mark | 15489 vs 10108 |
| PassMark — G2D Mark | 895 vs 757 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 819. 934 vs 787.025 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score | 7544 vs 4689 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Desktop)
| PassMark — G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark — G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench — OpenCL |
|
|
||||
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 SUPER | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Desktop) |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — G3D Mark | 10108 | 15489 |
| PassMark — G2D Mark | 757 | 895 |
| Geekbench — OpenCL | 55816 | 46100 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) |
89.343 | 27.417 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 787.025 | 819.934 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13569 | 11173 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 3690 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3343 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13569 | 11173 |
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Fps) |
3715 | 3690 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3343 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score | 4689 | 7544 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 150.103 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2036.763 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 14.035 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Desktop) | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
| Code name | TU116 | GP104 |
| Launch date | 22 Nov 2019 | 27 May 2016 |
| Place in performance rating | 214 | 243 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | |
| Price now | $439. 99 |
|
| Value for money (0-100) | 43.72 | |
| Boost clock speed | 1725 MHz | 1733 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1530 MHz | 1607 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 16 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 | 2560 |
| Pixel fill rate | 55.20 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 138.0 GTexel/s | 277.3 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Transistor count | 6600 million | 7,200 million |
| CUDA cores | 2560 | |
| Floating-point performance | 8,873 gflops | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | |
| Display Connectors | 1xDVI, 1xHDMI, 1xDisplayPort | DP 1. 42, HDMI 2.0b, DL-DVI, 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| HDMI | ||
| G-SYNC support | ||
| Multi monitor support | ||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 9 inches (229 mm) | 10.5″ (26.7 cm) |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 350 Watt | 500 Watt |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 8-pin |
| Width | Dual-slot | 2-slot |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.
|