GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 350

NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 1650

2019Core: 1485 MHzBoost: 1665 MHz

Popular choices:

VS
AMD

Radeon R9 350

2015Boost: 1000 MHz

Popular choices:

GTX 1650

Performance Spectrum - GPU

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.

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

  • +293.8% higher PassMark G3D performance.
  • Delivers 161.7% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 20.2 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $99 MSRP).
  • 100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
  • Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 350: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 350 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
  • Draws 75W instead of 300W, a 225W 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.
  • 36.3% longer card at 229mm vs 168mm.

Radeon R9 350

2015

Why buy it

  • Costs $50 less on MSRP ($99 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
  • Measures 168mm instead of 229mm, a 61mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

  • Lower PassMark G3D performance (1,998 vs 7,869).
  • 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 20.2 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($99 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
  • 300% higher power demand at 300W vs 75W.

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon R9 350?
Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 7,869 vs 1,998 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 card with no meaningful modern upscaling stack, while Radeon R9 350 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, 293.8% 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 50.5% more expensive on MSRP at $149 MSRP versus $99 MSRP, and you are getting 293.8% higher G3D Mark. Radeon R9 350 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.
Is Radeon R9 350 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?
No, not for a fresh gaming build. Radeon R9 350 is 2015 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM, 1,998 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.

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

PresetGeForce GTX 1650Radeon R9 350
1080p
low94 FPS90 FPS
medium83 FPS72 FPS
high70 FPS60 FPS
ultra58 FPS39 FPS
1440p
low87 FPS67 FPS
medium74 FPS54 FPS
high60 FPS45 FPS
ultra50 FPS29 FPS
4K
low41 FPS27 FPS
medium39 FPS26 FPS
high27 FPS17 FPS
ultra24 FPS14 FPS
Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

PresetGeForce GTX 1650Radeon R9 350
1080p
low136 FPS90 FPS
medium113 FPS72 FPS
high94 FPS60 FPS
ultra71 FPS45 FPS
1440p
low79 FPS67 FPS
medium62 FPS54 FPS
high44 FPS45 FPS
ultra35 FPS34 FPS
4K
low36 FPS45 FPS
medium27 FPS36 FPS
high21 FPS30 FPS
ultra15 FPS22 FPS
League of Legends

League of Legends

PresetGeForce GTX 1650Radeon R9 350
1080p
low323 FPS90 FPS
medium283 FPS72 FPS
high205 FPS60 FPS
ultra169 FPS45 FPS
1440p
low225 FPS67 FPS
medium202 FPS54 FPS
high151 FPS45 FPS
ultra117 FPS34 FPS
4K
low130 FPS45 FPS
medium117 FPS36 FPS
high79 FPS30 FPS
ultra50 FPS22 FPS
Valorant

Valorant

PresetGeForce GTX 1650Radeon R9 350
1080p
low261 FPS90 FPS
medium211 FPS72 FPS
high191 FPS60 FPS
ultra166 FPS45 FPS
1440p
low201 FPS67 FPS
medium158 FPS54 FPS
high135 FPS45 FPS
ultra113 FPS34 FPS
4K
low99 FPS45 FPS
medium74 FPS36 FPS
high65 FPS30 FPS
ultra51 FPS22 FPS

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 350

NVIDIA

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.

AMD

Radeon R9 350

The Radeon R9 350 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 18 2015. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,998 points. Launch price was $329.

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 350's 1,998 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 293.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 350 uses GCN 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,560 (Radeon R9 350). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.12 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 350). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1000 MHz.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon R9 350
G3D Mark Score
7,869+294%
1,998
Architecture
Turing
GCN 2.0
Process Node
12 nm
28 nm
Shading Units
896
2560+186%
Compute (TFLOPS)
2.984 TFLOPS
5.12 TFLOPS+72%
Boost Clock
1665 MHz+67%
1000 MHz
ROPs
32
64+100%
TMUs
56
160+186%
L1 Cache
896 KB+40%
640 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 350 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon R9 350
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 350 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.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon R9 350
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
1 MB
🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12_0 (Radeon R9 350). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon R9 350
DirectX
12
12_0
Max Displays
3
4+33%
🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon R9 350). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 3.1.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon R9 350
Encoder
NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
VCE 1.0
Decoder
NVDEC 4th gen
UVD 3.1
Codecs
H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 350's 300W — a 120% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 300W (Radeon R9 350). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 229mm vs 168mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon R9 350
TDP
75W-75%
300W
Recommended PSU
300W
300W
Power Connector
None
None
Length
229mm
168mm
Height
111mm
Slots
2
1-50%
Temp (Load)
70°C
Perf/Watt
104.9+1466%
6.7
💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 350 launched at $99. The Radeon R9 350 costs 33.6% less ($50 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 20.2 (Radeon R9 350) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 161.4% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon R9 350
MSRP
$149
$99-34%
Performance per Dollar
52.8+161%
20.2
Codename
TU117
Grenada
Release
April 23 2019
June 18 2015
Ranking
#323
#296