Chipversus Index
Jump to Section

GeForce GTX 1650 vs RADEON 9200 SE

CPUCPUGPUGPU
NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 1650

2019Core: 1485 MHzBoost: 1665 MHz
GTX family
·······
Buy on Amazon
VS
AMD

RADEON 9200 SE

2025Core: 1295 MHzBoost: 2900 MHz
Similar parts
·······
Buy on Amazon

GeForce GTX 1650 vs RADEON 9200 SE Performance Spectrum

GeForce GTX 1650
4 GB 75
7,869
+262200.0%
brand logoGeForce GTX 880M SLI
brand logoGeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
brand logoGeForce GTX 960
brand logoGeForce GTX 1650 (móvel)
brand logoGeForce RTX 3050 OEM
brand logoGeForce GTX 1080
brand logoGeForce RTX 2080 SUPER
brand logoGeForce RTX 3070 Ti
RADEON 9200 SE
0.25 GB 55
3
0.0%
brand logoRadeon R9 370
brand logoRadeon R9 Fury
brand logoRadeon RX 5700
brand logoRadeon RX 6700
brand logoRadeon RX 7800 XT
brand logoRadeon RX 7900 XT

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 vs RADEON 9200 SE 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

Path of Exile 2

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low94 FPS
medium83 FPS
high70 FPS
ultra58 FPS
1080P
RADEON 9200 SE
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low136 FPS
medium113 FPS
high94 FPS
ultra71 FPS
1080P
RADEON 9200 SE
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
League of Legends

League of Legends

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low323 FPS
medium283 FPS
high205 FPS
ultra169 FPS
1080P
RADEON 9200 SE
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Valorant

Valorant

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low261 FPS
medium211 FPS
high191 FPS
ultra166 FPS
1080P
RADEON 9200 SE
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Among Us

Among Us

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low60 FPS
medium60 FPS
high60 FPS
ultra60 FPS
1080P
RADEON 9200 SE
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Apex Legends

Apex Legends

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low166 FPS
medium154 FPS
high145 FPS
ultra119 FPS
1080P
RADEON 9200 SE
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
ARC Raiders

ARC Raiders

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low77 FPS
medium59 FPS
high48 FPS
ultra34 FPS
1080P
RADEON 9200 SE
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Baldur's Gate 3

Baldur's Gate 3

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low59 FPS
medium41 FPS
high34 FPS
ultra25 FPS
1080P
RADEON 9200 SE
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low79 FPS
medium62 FPS
high49 FPS
ultra36 FPS
1080P
RADEON 9200 SE
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Call of Duty: Warzone

Call of Duty: Warzone

1080P
GeForce GTX 1650
low75 FPS
medium59 FPS
high46 FPS
ultra35 FPS
1080P
RADEON 9200 SE
low1 FPS
medium1 FPS
high1 FPS
ultra1 FPS
Check FPS with Custom Builds

GeForce GTX 1650 vs RADEON 9200 SE: 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

2019

Why buy it

  • ✅6866.0% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
  • ✅Delivers 52712.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0.1 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $30 MSRP).
  • ✅1500% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 256 MB).

Trade-offs

  • ❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
  • ❌36.4% higher power demand at 75W vs 55W.
  • ❌36.3% longer card at 229mm vs 168mm.

RADEON 9200 SE

2025

Why buy it

  • ✅Costs $119 less on MSRP ($30 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
  • ✅Better long-term bet: RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) on 4nm gives it a newer hardware base for upcoming games.
  • ✅Draws 55W instead of 75W, a 20W reduction.
  • ✅Measures 168mm instead of 229mm, a 61mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

  • ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
  • ❌Less VRAM, with 256 MB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
  • ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0.1 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($30 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?
GeForce GTX 1650 is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 6866.0% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and by 262200% in PassMark G3D (7,869 vs 3), so the answer here is pretty clean.
Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?
RADEON 9200 SE is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: the newer upscaling stack, FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 (2025) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack, a 4nm process instead of 12nm, 40 vs 0 ray-tracing units, and a newer 2025 generation instead of 2019. That gives it the more rounded hardware package for newer games.
Which GPU is the better buy today?
GeForce GTX 1650 makes the most sense to buy today. It is $119 more expensive on MSRP at $149 vs $30, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 52712.1% (52.8 vs 0.1), so the value case lines up with the gaming result. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, GeForce GTX 1650 is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, RADEON 9200 SE has the stronger long-term case.

GeForce GTX 1650 vs RADEON 9200 SE Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

NVIDIA

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.

AMD

RADEON 9200 SE

The RADEON 9200 SE is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 6 2025. It features the RDNA 3.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1295 MHz to 2900 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 40 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the RADEON 9200 SE's 3 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 262200%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the RADEON 9200 SE uses RDNA 3.5, both on 12 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,560 (RADEON 9200 SE). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 14.85 TFLOPS (RADEON 9200 SE). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2900 MHz.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650RADEON 9200 SE
G3D Mark Score
7,869+262200%
3
Architecture
Turing
RDNA 3.5
Process Node
12 nm
4 nm
Shading Units
896
2560+186%
Compute (TFLOPS)
2.984 TFLOPS
14.85 TFLOPS+398%
Boost Clock
1665 MHz
2900 MHz+74%
ROPs
32
64+100%
TMUs
56
160+186%
L2 Cache
1 MB
8 MB+700%
✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 1650 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The RADEON 9200 SE leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650RADEON 9200 SE
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 has 4 GB of VRAM, while the RADEON 9200 SE carries 256 MB. GeForce GTX 1650 gives you 1500% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and 64-bit on the RADEON 9200 SE. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8 MB (RADEON 9200 SE) — the RADEON 9200 SE has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650RADEON 9200 SE
VRAM Capacity
4 GB+1500%
0.25 GB
Memory Type
GDDR5
GDDR5
Bus Width
128-bit+100%
64-bit
L2 Cache
1 MB
8 MB+700%
🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8.1 (RADEON 9200 SE). Vulkan: 1.4 vs N/A. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650RADEON 9200 SE
DirectX
12+48%
8.1
Vulkan
1.4
N/A
OpenGL
4.6+254%
1.3
Max Displays
3+50%
2
🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs None (RADEON 9200 SE). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs None. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2 (RADEON 9200 SE).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650RADEON 9200 SE
Encoder
NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
None
Decoder
NVDEC 4th gen
None
Codecs
H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9
MPEG-2
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the RADEON 9200 SE's 55W — a 30.8% difference. The RADEON 9200 SE is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (RADEON 9200 SE). Power connectors: None vs Legacy. Card length: 229mm vs 168mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 60.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650RADEON 9200 SE
TDP
75W
55W-27%
Recommended PSU
300W-14%
350W
Power Connector
None
Legacy
Length
229mm
168mm
Height
111mm
111mm
Slots
2
1-50%
Temp (Load)
70°C
60-14%
Perf/Watt
104.9+104800%
0.1
💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the RADEON 9200 SE launched at $30. On MSRP, RADEON 9200 SE was 79.9% cheaper ($119 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.1 (RADEON 9200 SE) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 52700% better value. The newer card here is RADEON 9200 SE (2025 vs 2019).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650RADEON 9200 SE
MSRP
$149
$30-80%
Performance per Dollar
52.8+52700%
0.1
Codename
TU117
Strix Halo
Release
April 23 2019
January 6 2025
Ranking
#323
#98
Search GeForce GTX 1650 on AmazonSearch RADEON 9200 SE on Amazon

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.