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

✅48.7% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 84.7% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 28.6 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 270 / R7 370: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
✅Draws 75W instead of 110W, a 35W 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 270 / R7 370

2015

Why buy it

✅Measures 220mm instead of 229mm, a 9mm 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 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-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 28.6 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌46.7% higher power demand at 110W vs 75W.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon R9 270 / R7 370

2015

Why buy it

✅48.7% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 84.7% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 28.6 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 270 / R7 370: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
✅Draws 75W instead of 110W, a 35W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Measures 220mm instead of 229mm, a 9mm 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.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-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 28.6 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌46.7% higher power demand at 110W vs 75W.

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon R9 270 / R7 370?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is clearly the better overall GPU here. GeForce GTX 1650 averages 48.7% more FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. You are also looking at 7,869 vs 4,260 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 card with no meaningful modern upscaling stack, while Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 is a 2015 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 2015, 84.7% 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 today, but it is not as lopsided as a simple winner label makes it sound. GeForce GTX 1650 is in basically the same MSRP band at $149 MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 48.7% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and 84.7% higher G3D Mark. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 84.7%. That is why the better overall card still comes out as the smarter buy today, not just the faster one.

Is Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

Yes. Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 is still a strong modern gaming GPU: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It remains a good buy when you can get it meaningfully cheaper than the alternative around $149 MSRP, even if GeForce GTX 1650 is still the cleaner recommendation on overall value today.

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 270 / R7 370 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370
1080p
low	94 FPS	77 FPS
medium	83 FPS	62 FPS
high	70 FPS	49 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	32 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	65 FPS
medium	74 FPS	53 FPS
high	60 FPS	37 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	23 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	23 FPS
medium	39 FPS	22 FPS
high	27 FPS	14 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	12 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 270 / R7 370

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370
1080p
low	136 FPS	111 FPS
medium	113 FPS	82 FPS
high	94 FPS	63 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	38 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	63 FPS
medium	62 FPS	42 FPS
high	44 FPS	31 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	20 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	23 FPS
medium	27 FPS	15 FPS
high	21 FPS	12 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	8 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 270 / R7 370

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370
1080p
low	323 FPS	192 FPS
medium	283 FPS	153 FPS
high	205 FPS	128 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	96 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	144 FPS
medium	202 FPS	115 FPS
high	151 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	72 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	96 FPS
medium	117 FPS	77 FPS
high	79 FPS	64 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	48 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 270 / R7 370

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370
1080p
low	261 FPS	135 FPS
medium	211 FPS	108 FPS
high	191 FPS	94 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	77 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	99 FPS
medium	158 FPS	81 FPS
high	135 FPS	71 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	54 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	58 FPS
medium	74 FPS	44 FPS
high	65 FPS	35 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	25 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 270 / R7 370

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 270 / R7 370

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 270 / R7 370

The Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 5 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 925 MHz to 975 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 110W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,260 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 270 / R7 370's 4,260 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 84.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 uses GCN 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,280 (Radeon R9 270 / R7 370). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.496 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 270 / R7 370). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 975 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370
G3D Mark Score	7,869+85%	4,260
Architecture	Turing	GCN 1.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	1280+43%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+20%	2.496 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+71%	975 MHz
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	56	80+43%
L1 Cache	896 KB+133%	384 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 270 / R7 370 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370
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 270 / R7 370 has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 179.2 GB/s (Radeon R9 270 / R7 370) — a 40% advantage for the Radeon R9 270 / R7 370. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 270 / R7 370) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	179.2 GB/s+40%
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (11_1) (Radeon R9 270 / R7 370). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370
DirectX	12	12 (11_1)
Vulkan	1.4+17%	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon R9 270 / R7 370). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Radeon R9 270 / R7 370).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 1.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 4.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 270 / R7 370's 110W — a 37.8% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 450W (Radeon R9 270 / R7 370). Power connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 220mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 70.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 270 / R7 370
TDP	75W-32%	110W
Recommended PSU	300W-33%	450W
Power Connector	None	1x 6-pin
Length	229mm	220mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C	70
Perf/Watt	104.9+171%	38.7

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 270 / R7 370 launched at $149. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 28.6 (Radeon R9 270 / R7 370) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 84.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).