GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon R9 295X2
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 295X2 Performance Spectrum
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 R9 295X2 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
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 295X2: 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
2019Why buy it
- ✅Costs $1,350 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $1,499 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 806.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 5.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $1,499 MSRP).
- ✅Radeon R9 295X2 is already legacy-tier future-proofing, so GeForce GTX 1650 is the less risky modern option long term.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 500W, a 425W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 307mm, a 78mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 295X2 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
Radeon R9 295X2
2014Why buy it
- ✅34.8% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌2014 hardware with 8 GB of VRAM already sits in legacy territory for modern games.
- ❌906% HIGHER MSRP$1,499 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 5.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($1,499 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌566.7% higher power demand at 500W vs 75W.
- ❌34.1% longer card at 307mm vs 229mm.
Quick Answers
Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?
Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?
Which GPU is the better buy today?
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 295X2 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
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 295X2
The Radeon R9 295X2 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 29 2014. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1018 MHz. It has 2816 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 500W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,734 points. Launch price was $1,499.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 295X2's 8,734 — the Radeon R9 295X2 leads by 11%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 295X2 uses GCN 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,816 (Radeon R9 295X2). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.733 TFLOPS ×2 (Radeon R9 295X2). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1018 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 8,734+11% |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2816 ×2+214% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 5.733 TFLOPS ×2+92% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+64% | 1018 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 ×2+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 176 ×2+214% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+27% | 704 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce GTX 1650 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon R9 295X2 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 R9 295X2 carries 8 GB. Radeon R9 295X2 gives you 100% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 320 GB/s x2 (Radeon R9 295X2) — a 2401.6% advantage for the Radeon R9 295X2. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and 512-bit x2 on the Radeon R9 295X2.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 320 GB/s x2+150% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 512-bit x2+300% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.0 (Radeon R9 295X2). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 6.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+27% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+7% | 4.3 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 6+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 295X2). 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 295X2).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 295X2's 500W — a 147.8% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1000W (Radeon R9 295X2). Power connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 307mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 65°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-85% | 500W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-70% | 1000W |
| Power Connector | None | 2x 8-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 307mm |
| Height | 111mm | 114mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | 65°C-7% |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+499% | 17.5 |
Value Analysis
At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the Radeon R9 295X2 launched at $1499. On MSRP, GeForce GTX 1650 was 90.1% cheaper ($1350 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.8 (Radeon R9 295X2) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 810.3% better value. The newer card here is GeForce GTX 1650 (2019 vs 2014).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-90% | $1499 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+810% | 5.8 |
| Codename | TU117 | Vesuvius |
| Release | April 23 2019 | April 29 2014 |
| Ranking | #323 | #303 |
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.
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 295X2
