GeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs Radeon RX 5300
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Popular choices:
Radeon RX 5300
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Performance Per Dollar Radeon RX 5300
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon RX 5300 is significantly newer (2020 vs 2012). The Radeon RX 5300 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon RX 5300 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+33.3%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon RX 5300 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $50 versus $77 for the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti, it costs 35% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 55.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+55.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($77) | ✅More affordable ($50) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and Radeon RX 5300
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 9 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 928 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,525 points. Launch price was $149.
Radeon RX 5300
The Radeon RX 5300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 28 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1327 MHz to 1645 MHz. It has 1408 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,606 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti scores 7,525 and the Radeon RX 5300 reaches 7,606 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is built on Kepler while the Radeon RX 5300 uses RDNA 1.0, both on 28 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 768 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 1,408 (Radeon RX 5300). Raw compute: 1.425 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 4.632 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 5300).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,525 | 7,606+1% |
| Architecture | Kepler | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 1408+83% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.425 TFLOPS | 4.632 TFLOPS+225% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 64 | 88+38% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1.5 MB+500% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 2.1 |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon RX 5300 has 3 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 192 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 168 GB/s (Radeon RX 5300) — a 14.3% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti. Bus width: 128-bit vs 96-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 1.5 MB (Radeon RX 5300) — the Radeon RX 5300 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+33% | 3 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 192 GB/s+14% | 168 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+33% | 96-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1.5 MB+500% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 12.1 (Radeon RX 5300). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 6 (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs VCN 2.0 (Radeon RX 5300). Decoder: NVDEC 4 vs VCN 2.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Radeon RX 5300).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 6 (Volta) | VCN 2.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4 | VCN 2.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti draws 50W versus the Radeon RX 5300's 100W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 0W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 350W (Radeon RX 5300). Power connectors: None vs 8-pin. Card length: 0mm vs 180mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-50% | 100W |
| Recommended PSU | 0W-100% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | 8-pin |
| Length | 0mm | 180mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 150.5+98% | 76.1 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $77, while the Radeon RX 5300 launched at $129 and now averages $50. The Radeon RX 5300 costs 35.1% less ($27 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 97.7 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 152.1 (Radeon RX 5300) — the Radeon RX 5300 offers 55.7% better value. The Radeon RX 5300 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150 | $129-14% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $77 | $50-35% |
| Performance per Dollar | 97.7 | 152.1+56% |
| Codename | GK106 | Navi 14 |
| Release | October 9 2012 | May 28 2020 |
| Ranking | #633 | #336 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and Radeon RX 5300
