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

✅Costs $400 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Delivers 246% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 15.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 290X / 390X: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 290X / 390X is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 75W instead of 275W, a 200W reduction.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 275mm, a 46mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 290X / 390X across 48 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Radeon R9 290X / 390X

2015

Why buy it

✅9.8% more average FPS across 48 tracked games in our benchmark data.

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
268.5% HIGHER MSRP
$549 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 15.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($549 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌266.7% higher power demand at 275W vs 75W.
❌20.1% longer card at 275mm vs 229mm.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon R9 290X / 390X

2015

Why buy it

✅Costs $400 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Delivers 246% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 15.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 290X / 390X: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 290X / 390X is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 75W instead of 275W, a 200W reduction.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 275mm, a 46mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Why buy it

✅9.8% more average FPS across 48 tracked games in our benchmark data.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 290X / 390X across 48 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
268.5% HIGHER MSRP
$549 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 15.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($549 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌266.7% higher power demand at 275W vs 75W.
❌20.1% longer card at 275mm vs 229mm.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon R9 290X / 390X better than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. Radeon R9 290X / 390X averages 9.8% more FPS across 48 tracked games in our benchmark data. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 7,869 vs 8,380 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer Radeon R9 290X / 390X is the overall package: you are getting FSR upscaling.

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, the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling, and a 12nm process instead of 28nm. That broader feature stack should age better as more games lean on modern upscaling and frame-generation support.

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

Radeon R9 290X / 390X is the smarter buy by a wide margin. Radeon R9 290X / 390X is about 268.5% more expensive on MSRP at $549 MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 9.8% more estimated average FPS across 48 tracked games in our benchmark data and 6.5% higher G3D Mark. GeForce GTX 1650 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

When does GeForce GTX 1650 make more sense than Radeon R9 290X / 390X?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is still an excellent gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It makes more sense if your priority is newer architecture, lower power draw (75W vs 275W), future-proofing, and staying closer to $149 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon R9 290X / 390X. The trade-off is that Radeon R9 290X / 390X currently gives you 6.5% higher G3D Mark and 9.8% more estimated average FPS across 48 tracked games in our benchmark data. GeForce GTX 1650 still holds the G3D-per-dollar lead, so the performance win comes with a real value premium.

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 290X / 390X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290X / 390X
1080p
low	94 FPS	80 FPS
medium	83 FPS	69 FPS
high	70 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	37 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	70 FPS
medium	74 FPS	61 FPS
high	60 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	28 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	25 FPS
medium	39 FPS	24 FPS
high	27 FPS	16 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	14 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 290X / 390X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290X / 390X
1080p
low	136 FPS	185 FPS
medium	113 FPS	157 FPS
high	94 FPS	130 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	103 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	130 FPS
medium	62 FPS	102 FPS
high	44 FPS	82 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	63 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	59 FPS
medium	27 FPS	48 FPS
high	21 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	35 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 290X / 390X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290X / 390X
1080p
low	323 FPS	377 FPS
medium	283 FPS	302 FPS
high	205 FPS	251 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	189 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	283 FPS
medium	202 FPS	226 FPS
high	151 FPS	189 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	141 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	189 FPS
medium	117 FPS	151 FPS
high	79 FPS	126 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	94 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 290X / 390X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290X / 390X
1080p
low	261 FPS	155 FPS
medium	211 FPS	128 FPS
high	191 FPS	110 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	94 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	110 FPS
medium	158 FPS	91 FPS
high	135 FPS	79 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	65 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	66 FPS
medium	74 FPS	52 FPS
high	65 FPS	41 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	31 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 290X / 390X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 290X / 390X

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 290X / 390X

The Radeon R9 290X / 390X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 18 2015. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1050 MHz. It has 2816 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 275W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,380 points. Launch price was $429.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 290X / 390X's 8,380 — the Radeon R9 290X / 390X leads by 6.5%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 290X / 390X uses GCN 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,816 (Radeon R9 290X / 390X). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.914 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 290X / 390X). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1050 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290X / 390X
G3D Mark Score	7,869	8,380+6%
Architecture	Turing	GCN 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	2816+214%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	5.914 TFLOPS+98%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+59%	1050 MHz
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	176+214%
L1 Cache	896 KB+27%	704 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 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 290X / 390X relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290X / 390X
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)

Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 320 GB/s (Radeon R9 290X / 390X) — a 150% advantage for the Radeon R9 290X / 390X. Bus width: 128-bit vs 512-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290X / 390X
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	320 GB/s+150%
Bus Width	128-bit	512-bit+300%
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.0 (Radeon R9 290X / 390X). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 6.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290X / 390X
DirectX	12	12.0
Vulkan	1.4+27%	1.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	6+100%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 290X / 390X). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 4.2. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (Radeon R9 290X / 390X).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290X / 390X
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 2.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 4.2
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 290X / 390X's 275W — a 114.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 750W (Radeon R9 290X / 390X). Power connectors: None vs 6-pin + 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 275mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 95°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290X / 390X
TDP	75W-73%	275W
Recommended PSU	300W-60%	750W
Power Connector	None	6-pin + 8-pin
Length	229mm	275mm
Height	111mm	109mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C-26%	95°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+244%	30.5

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 290X / 390X launched at $549. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 72.9% less ($400 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 15.3 (Radeon R9 290X / 390X) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 245.1% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).