
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon 680M
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.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Why buy it
- ✅+105.1% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌50% higher power demand at 75W vs 50W.
- ❌22800% longer card at 229mm vs 1mm.
Radeon 680M
2023Why buy it
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅Draws 50W instead of 75W, a 25W reduction.
- ✅Measures 1mm instead of 229mm, a 228mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (3,836 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon 680M
2023Why buy it
- ✅+105.1% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
Why buy it
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅Draws 50W instead of 75W, a 25W reduction.
- ✅Measures 1mm instead of 229mm, a 228mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌50% higher power demand at 75W vs 50W.
- ❌22800% longer card at 229mm vs 1mm.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (3,836 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon 680M?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
When does Radeon 680M make more sense than GeForce GTX 1650?
Games Benchmarks
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 9800X3D 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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 680M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 127 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 113 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 94 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 70 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 111 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 93 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 76 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 57 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 47 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 44 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 32 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 28 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 680M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 166 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 132 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 98 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 65 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 109 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 82 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 62 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 45 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 55 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 42 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 34 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 22 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 680M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 173 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 138 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 115 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 86 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 129 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 104 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 86 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 65 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 86 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 69 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 58 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 43 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 680M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 173 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 138 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 115 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 86 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 129 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 104 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 86 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 65 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 86 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 69 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 58 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 43 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon 680M

GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650
The GeForce GTX 1650 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1485 MHz to 1665 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,869 points. Launch price was $149.

Radeon 680M
Radeon 680M
The Radeon 680M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 3 2023. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2000 MHz to 2200 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,836 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon 680M's 3,836 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 105.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon 680M uses RDNA 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 768 (Radeon 680M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3.379 TFLOPS (Radeon 680M). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2200 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 680M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+105% | 3,836 |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+17% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 3.379 TFLOPS+13% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2200 MHz+32% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56+17% | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+250% | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce GTX 1650 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Radeon 680M relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 680M |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon 680M has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs System. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Radeon 680M) — the Radeon 680M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 680M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | Shared |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | System |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | System |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12_2 (Radeon 680M). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 680M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12_2 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCN 3.1 (Radeon 680M). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 3.1.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 680M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCN 3.1 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | VCN 3.1 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | — |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon 680M's 50W — a 40% difference. The Radeon 680M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon 680M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 1mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 680M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 50W-33% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 1mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+37% | 76.7 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon 680M is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 680M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | — |
| Codename | TU117 | Rembrandt+ |
| Release | April 23 2019 | January 3 2023 |
| Ranking | #323 | #512 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













