GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
Radeon R9 285
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design vs Radeon R9 285 Performance Spectrum
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.
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design vs Radeon R9 285 FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design vs Radeon R9 285: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
2020Why buy it
- ✅Radeon R9 285 is already legacy-tier future-proofing, so GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is the less risky modern option long term.
- ✅Draws 50W instead of 190W, a 140W reduction.
- ✅More future proof: Turing (2018−2022) on 12nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 285 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 26.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $249 MSRP).
Radeon R9 285
2014Why buy it
- ✅7.1% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 26.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($249 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌2014 hardware with 4 GB of VRAM already sits in legacy territory for modern games.
- ❌280% higher power demand at 190W vs 50W.
Quick Answers
Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?
Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?
Which GPU is the better buy today?
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design vs Radeon R9 285 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 2 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1035 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,574 points.
Radeon R9 285
The Radeon R9 285 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in September 2 2014. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 918 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 190W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,680 points. Launch price was $249.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design scores 6,574 and the Radeon R9 285 reaches 6,680 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 285 uses GCN 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 1,792 (Radeon R9 285). Raw compute: 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 3.29 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 285).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design | Radeon R9 285 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,574 | 6,680+2% |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1024 | 1792+75% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.458 TFLOPS | 3.29 TFLOPS+34% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 112+75% |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB+127% | 0.44 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon R9 285 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design | Radeon R9 285 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards ship with 4 GB of video memory. Memory bandwidth: 192 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 176 GB/s (Radeon R9 285) — a 9.1% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design and 256-bit on the Radeon R9 285. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 285) — the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design | Radeon R9 285 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 192 GB/s+9% | 176 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 12.0 (Radeon R9 285). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.4. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design | Radeon R9 285 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3+8% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+5% | 4.4 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 285). Decoder: NVDEC (4th Gen) vs UVD 5.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs MPEG-2,H.264 (Radeon R9 285).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design | Radeon R9 285 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (Turing) | VCE 3.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC (4th Gen) | UVD 5.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit | MPEG-2,H.264 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design draws 50W versus the Radeon R9 285's 190W — a 116.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 500W (Radeon R9 285). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 2x 6-pin. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 65°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design | Radeon R9 285 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-74% | 190W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-30% | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 2x 6-pin |
| Length | — | 221mm |
| Height | — | 109mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | 65°C-13% |
| Perf/Watt | 131.5+274% | 35.2 |
Value Analysis
The newer card here is GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design (2020 vs 2014).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design | Radeon R9 285 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $249 |
| Codename | TU117 | Tonga |
| Release | April 2 2020 | September 2 2014 |
| Ranking | #371 | #365 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
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 with Max-Q Design and Radeon R9 285
