United Kingdom
India
Deutschland
France
Canada
España
Belgium
Netherlands
Poland
Sweden
България
Australia
Singapore
Italia
中国
日本GTX 1650 Max-Q vs GTX 1050 Ti – the older one isn’t that far away
It’s time to compare some not-so-beasty graphics cards – GTX 1650 Max-Q and GTX 1050 Ti. Not the fastest GPUs out there but they still have enough power to drive the modern games. Maybe you are asking why we picked exactly those two GPUs? The GTX 1650 Max-Q is very popular when it comes to thin and light gaming laptops – an “eco” Turing-based video card that doesn’t consume much power and doesn’t dissipate a lot of heat.
The GTX 1050 Ti is a Pascal GPU and it is still a very popular one because the laptops equipped with it don’t cost that much. At the same time, the GP107 still has much to offer. The other reason that we picked those two is to see how much power is the Max-Q tech taking away from the GTX 1650 and how it stands to a full-blown 1050 Ti.
Let the comparison begin.
Contents
Specs overview
The GTX 1650 Max-Q is based on the TU117 chip (Turing architecture). It has 1024 shader units, 32 ROPs, 4GB GDDR5 video memory, 128-bit memory bus, and just 35W TGP. As for the frequencies, 1020 MHz base clock, 1245 MHz boost, and the memory is clocked at 8000 MHz. Sounds good but that TGP looks like a barrier for high frame times – too low, but that’s the “price” for thin and cool notebooks.
The GTX 1050 Ti is based on the almost three years old GP107 chip (Pascal architecture). Yes, it is a bit old, but the little Pascal GPU looks good on paper. We have 768 shader units, 32 ROPs, 4GB GDDR5, 128-bit memory bus, and 64W TGP. The frequencies are on the high side – 1493 MHz / 1620 MHz base and boost clock and 7000 MHz for the memory. Not bad for 2017 GPU.
The RTX 1650 Max-Q has more raw power – more shader units and a higher memory clock. Oppositely, the Pascal one has the same ROPs count, much higher base and boost frequencies, the same memory size, the same memory bus width, and almost double the TGP. It will be a hard battle for the TU117 because the Pascal contender is already showing its muscles but frequencies aren’t the most important thing – the raw power always comes first.
Let’s clash those two.
GPU comparison table
| GTX 1650 Max-Q | GTX 1050 Ti | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
| GPU chip | TU117 | GP107 |
| Shader units | 1024 (+32%) | 768 |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| Base Clock (MHz) | 1020 | 1493 (+46%) |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1245 | 1620 (+30%) |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 8000 (+14%) | 7000 |
| Memory size (MB) | 4096 | 4096 |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory bus width (bit) | 128 | 128 |
| TGP (Total Graphics Power) | 35W | 64W (+83%) |
| DirectX version | 12.1 | 12.1 |
| Technology | 12nm | 14nm |
| RTX capabilities | No | No |
| Release date | 04.2019 | 01.2017 |
| Full Specs and benches | Link | Link |
Synthetic benchmarks
As we already said – that TU117 TGP. You know the drill from our previous GPU comparisons (like RTX 2080 Max-Q vs RTX 2070) – the synthetic benchmarks are very power-hungry and the Max-Q GPUs are in danger here. That’s why the 1050 Ti is almost neck-a-neck with the TU117 here. In modern benchmarks like Unigine Superposition the GTX 1650 Max-Q show to GTX 1050 Ti what is the meaning of higher shader count.
| GTX 1660 Ti over GTX 1650 | 3Dmark Fire Strike (G) | Unigine Heaven 3.0 | Unigine Heaven 4.0 | Unigine Superposition | Average difference % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q | +0.5% | +1% | +26% | ~7% | |
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | – | – | 1% | – | – |
Gaming tests
| Far Cry 5 | Full HD, Normal (Check settings) | Full HD, High (Check settings) | Full HD, Ultra (Check settings) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q | 54 fps (+13%) | 49 fps (+9%) | 46 fps (+12%) |
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | 48 fps | 45 fps | 41 fps |
In Far Cry 5, both GPUs perform good – they are able to produce more than 40 FPS on Ultra preset which is impressive for video cards of their caliber. Still, The 1050 Ti is close to the performance of the new one. If you turn off the on-screen metrics stats (also known as OSD) you will hardly spot the difference between them.
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | Full HD, Lowest (Check settings) | Full HD, Medium (Check settings) | Full HD, Very High (Check settings) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q | 100 fps (+20%) | 69 fps (+19%) | 32 fps (+7%) |
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | 83 fps | 58 fps | 30 fps |
A close situation again. On Very High settings, they perform almost the same – Rise Of The Tomb Raider is a heavy game and the TGP of the GTX 1650 Max-Q is on the limit all the time. Hm, not bad, if you are not very pretentious about FPS you can enjoy 30+ FPS on Max settings no matter the video card.
| Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands | Full HD, Medium (Check settings) | Full HD, High (Check settings) | Full HD, Very High (Check settings) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q | 49 fps (+9%) | 45 fps (+10%) | 40 fps (+11%) |
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | 45 fps | 41 fps | 36 fps |
Ghost Recocon: Wildlands is a heavy game too. Again, the frame times are close – around 10% more for the TU117 in every setting category. The GP107 doesn’t want to give up.
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider (2018) | Full HD, Lowest (Check settings) | Full HD, Medium (Check settings) | Full HD, High (Check settings) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q | 69 fps (+5%) | 47 fps (+18%) | 43 fps (+19%) |
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | 66 fps | 40 fps | 36 fps |
In Shadow Of The Tomb Raider, the GTX 1650 Max-Q is clearly the fastest GPU in this comparison with a “juicy” 19% better result on High settings.
Performance summary (gaming tests)
Ok, let’s see what happened. TU117 is 12% to 14% faster than GP107. Not a huge difference but it’s something.
| GTX 1650 Max-Q over GTX 1050 Ti | Full HD, High | Full HD, Very High | Full HD, MAX |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q | +12% | +14% | +12% |
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | – | – | – |
Verdict
The GTX 1650 Max-Q has the lead in this comparison, all the time. Not a huge distance between those two GPUs – a bit over 12% on average. Maybe this performance gap will be more significant in the 2020 tittles – if the Max-Q is on the 30 fps mark the GTX 1050 Ti will struggle below 30 FPS. It is just an example.
This article shows us that both GPUs are still capable of delivering good results on High settings, sometimes even on Ultra (Far Cry 5). Both are a good choice because the performance gap between them is little and the memory size is equal. If you don’t care about the visual quality and medium preset is fine you, GTX 1650 Max-Q and 1050 Ti will serve you for at least a couple of years ahead.
Still, the GTX 1650 Max-Q is the modern one – much lower power consumption, lower heat dissipation, and always faster. Of course, you will find it in thinner and lighter machines. The GTX 1050 Ti performs well but its power consumption is higher, it dissipates more heat, it is around 12% slower, and most of the time will be fitted in thicker devices than the 1650 Max-Q ones.
The final choice will depend from the end prices of the particular machines with those two GPUs. If you find one (with 1050 Ti) with a significant price cut over the GTX 1650 Max-Q notebooks – get it, that will be a good choice. If the price gap isn’t big just get the one with the newer GPU – the GTX 1650 Max-Q.
All laptops equipped with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
All laptops equipped with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
Awesome comparison!
Really helped me make me purchase decision.
Was wondering between a 1650mq and 1050ti MSI PS63,
decided on the 1050ti version since it’s around $500 cheaper.
You have an error in GPU comparison table for GTX 1050 Ti Architecture, it is Pascal not Turing