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

2019

Why buy it

✅+172.1% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 99% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 26.5 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $109 MSRP).
✅300% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 1 GB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R7 260: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R7 260 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
✅Draws 75W instead of 95W, a 20W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
❌34.7% longer card at 229mm vs 170mm.

Radeon R7 260

2013

Why buy it

✅Costs $40 less on MSRP ($109 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
✅Measures 170mm instead of 229mm, a 59mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (2,892 vs 7,869).
❌Less VRAM, with 1 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 1 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 26.5 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($109 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌26.7% higher power demand at 95W vs 75W.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon R7 260

2013

Why buy it

✅+172.1% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 99% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 26.5 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $109 MSRP).
✅300% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 1 GB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R7 260: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R7 260 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
✅Draws 75W instead of 95W, a 20W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Costs $40 less on MSRP ($109 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
✅Measures 170mm instead of 229mm, a 59mm 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.
❌34.7% longer card at 229mm vs 170mm.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (2,892 vs 7,869).
❌Less VRAM, with 1 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 1 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 26.5 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($109 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌26.7% higher power demand at 95W vs 75W.

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon R7 260?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 7,869 vs 2,892 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 card with no meaningful modern upscaling stack, while Radeon R7 260 is a 2013 model from an older generation with FSR upscaling. So this is not really a tight same-tier comparison. It is more a modern card against an older, weaker alternative.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce GTX 1650 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2019 generation instead of 2013, 172.1% more raw performance headroom, more VRAM at 4 GB instead of 1 GB, and the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling. That leaves it with more room for heavier textures, tougher ray tracing loads, and higher-end 1440p or 4K gaming over the next few years.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

GeForce GTX 1650 is the smarter buy by a wide margin. GeForce GTX 1650 is about 36.7% more expensive on MSRP at $149 MSRP versus $109 MSRP, and you are getting 172.1% higher G3D Mark. Radeon R7 260 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

Is Radeon R7 260 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

No, not for a fresh gaming build. Radeon R7 260 is 2013 hardware with 1 GB of VRAM, 2,892 in G3D Mark, and FSR upscaling. That is simply too far behind to be an easy modern recommendation.

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.

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Radeon R7 260 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 260
1080p
low	94 FPS	46 FPS
medium	83 FPS	28 FPS
high	70 FPS	19 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	9 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	30 FPS
medium	74 FPS	18 FPS
high	60 FPS	9 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	5 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	10 FPS
medium	39 FPS	7 FPS
high	27 FPS	4 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	3 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R7 260

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 260
1080p
low	136 FPS	53 FPS
medium	113 FPS	28 FPS
high	94 FPS	20 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	14 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	24 FPS
medium	62 FPS	13 FPS
high	44 FPS	8 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	7 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	7 FPS
medium	27 FPS	4 FPS
high	21 FPS	3 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	2 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R7 260

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 260
1080p
low	323 FPS	130 FPS
medium	283 FPS	104 FPS
high	205 FPS	87 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	65 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	98 FPS
medium	202 FPS	78 FPS
high	151 FPS	65 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	49 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	65 FPS
medium	117 FPS	52 FPS
high	79 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	33 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R7 260

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 260
1080p
low	261 FPS	73 FPS
medium	211 FPS	61 FPS
high	191 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	38 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	43 FPS
medium	158 FPS	36 FPS
high	135 FPS	30 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	24 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	29 FPS
medium	74 FPS	23 FPS
high	65 FPS	18 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	13 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R7 260

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R7 260

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 R7 260

The Radeon R7 260 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 17 2013. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1100 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 95W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,892 points. Launch price was $109.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R7 260's 2,892 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 172.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R7 260 uses GCN 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 768 (Radeon R7 260). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.536 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 260). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1100 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 260
G3D Mark Score	7,869+172%	2,892
Architecture	Turing	GCN 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896+17%	768
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+94%	1.536 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+51%	1100 MHz
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	56+17%	48
L1 Cache	896 KB+367%	192 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

✨

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 R7 260 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 260
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 R7 260 has 1 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 96 GB/s (Radeon R7 260) — a 33.3% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.25 MB (Radeon R7 260) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 260
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+300%	1 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s+33%	96 GB/s
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (12_0) (Radeon R7 260). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 260
DirectX	12	12 (12_0)
Vulkan	1.4+17%	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R7 260). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 4.2. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MVC (Radeon R7 260).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 260
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 2.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 4.2
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MVC

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R7 260's 95W — a 23.5% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 400W (Radeon R7 260). Power connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 170mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 260
TDP	75W-21%	95W
Recommended PSU	300W-25%	400W
Power Connector	None	1x 6-pin
Length	229mm	170mm
Height	111mm	112mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C-13%	80
Perf/Watt	104.9+245%	30.4

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R7 260 launched at $109. The Radeon R7 260 costs 26.8% less ($40 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 26.5 (Radeon R7 260) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 99.2% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).