GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 255

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

✅+424.3% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 389.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 10.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $139 MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 255: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 255 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
✅Draws 75W instead of 190W, a 115W 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.

Radeon R9 255

2014

Why buy it

✅Costs $10 less on MSRP ($139 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (1,501 vs 7,869).
❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 10.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($139 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌153.3% higher power demand at 190W vs 75W.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon R9 255

2014

Why buy it

✅+424.3% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 389.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 10.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $139 MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 255: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 255 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
✅Draws 75W instead of 190W, a 115W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Costs $10 less on MSRP ($139 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (1,501 vs 7,869).
❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 10.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($139 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌153.3% higher power demand at 190W vs 75W.

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon R9 255?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 7,869 vs 1,501 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 card with no meaningful modern upscaling stack, while Radeon R9 255 is a 2014 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 2014, 424.3% more raw performance headroom, more VRAM at 4 GB instead of 2 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 7.2% more expensive on MSRP at $149 MSRP versus $139 MSRP, and you are getting 424.3% higher G3D Mark. Radeon R9 255 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

Is Radeon R9 255 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

No, not for a fresh gaming build. Radeon R9 255 is 2014 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM, 1,501 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 R9 255 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 255
1080p
low	94 FPS	68 FPS
medium	83 FPS	54 FPS
high	70 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	34 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	51 FPS
medium	74 FPS	41 FPS
high	60 FPS	34 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	25 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	25 FPS
medium	39 FPS	23 FPS
high	27 FPS	15 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	13 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 255

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 255
1080p
low	136 FPS	68 FPS
medium	113 FPS	54 FPS
high	94 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	34 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	51 FPS
medium	62 FPS	41 FPS
high	44 FPS	34 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	25 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	28 FPS
medium	27 FPS	20 FPS
high	21 FPS	16 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	12 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 255

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 255
1080p
low	323 FPS	68 FPS
medium	283 FPS	54 FPS
high	205 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	34 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	51 FPS
medium	202 FPS	41 FPS
high	151 FPS	34 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	25 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	34 FPS
medium	117 FPS	27 FPS
high	79 FPS	23 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	17 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 255

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 255
1080p
low	261 FPS	68 FPS
medium	211 FPS	54 FPS
high	191 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	34 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	51 FPS
medium	158 FPS	41 FPS
high	135 FPS	34 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	25 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	34 FPS
medium	74 FPS	27 FPS
high	65 FPS	23 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	17 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 255

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 255

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 R9 255

The Radeon R9 255 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: 1,501 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 255's 1,501 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 424.3%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 255 uses GCN 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,792 (Radeon R9 255). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3.29 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 255).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 255
G3D Mark Score	7,869+424%	1,501
Architecture	Turing	GCN 3.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	1792+100%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	3.29 TFLOPS+10%
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	56	112+100%
L1 Cache	896 KB+100%	448 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 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 R9 255 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 255
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 R9 255 has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 255) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 255
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	Unknown
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 255's 190W — a 86.8% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 400W (Radeon R9 255). Power connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 255
TDP	75W-61%	190W
Recommended PSU	300W-25%	400W
Power Connector	None	1x 6-pin
Length	229mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	—
Temp (Load)	70°C	—
Perf/Watt	104.9+1228%	7.9

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 255 launched at $139. The Radeon R9 255 costs 6.7% less ($10 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 10.8 (Radeon R9 255) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 388.9% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).