GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 A375

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 A375 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.

GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 A375: 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

2019

Why buy it

✅401.9% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 152.7% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 20.9 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $49 MSRP).
✅700% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 512 MB).
✅Radeon R9 A375 is already obsolete for modern gaming, so GeForce GTX 1650 is the less risky modern option long term.

Trade-offs

❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
❌150% higher power demand at 75W vs 30W.
❌22800% longer card at 229mm vs 1mm.

Radeon R9 A375

2015

Why buy it

✅Costs $100 less on MSRP ($49 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
✅Draws 30W instead of 75W, a 45W reduction.
✅Measures 1mm instead of 229mm, a 228mm 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 512 MB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌2015 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 20.9 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($49 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

GeForce GTX 1650 is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 401.9% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and by 668.5% in PassMark G3D (7,869 vs 1,024), so the answer here is pretty clean.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce GTX 1650 is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: 4 GB vs 512 MB of VRAM, a 12nm process instead of 28nm, and a newer 2019 generation instead of 2015. That gives it more room for heavier textures and higher settings over time.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

GeForce GTX 1650 makes the most sense to buy today. It is $100 more expensive on MSRP at $149 vs $49, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 152.7% (52.8 vs 20.9), so the value case lines up with the gaming result.

GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 A375 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 A375

The Radeon R9 A375 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1015 MHz to 925 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,024 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 A375's 1,024 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 668.5%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 A375 uses GCN 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 640 (Radeon R9 A375). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 925 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 A375
G3D Mark Score	7,869+668%	1,024
Architecture	Turing	GCN 1.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896+40%	640
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+80%	925 MHz
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	56+40%	40

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 1650 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon R9 A375 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 A375
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 A375 carries 512 MB. GeForce GTX 1650 gives you 700% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and 128-bit on the Radeon R9 A375.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 A375
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+700%	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	Unknown
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12_0 (Radeon R9 A375). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 A375
DirectX	12	12_0
Max Displays	3	0

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 A375). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 4.2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 A375
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 2.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 4.2
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	—

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 A375's 30W — a 85.7% difference. The Radeon R9 A375 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon R9 A375). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 229mm vs 1mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 A375
TDP	75W	30W-60%
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	None
Length	229mm	1mm
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C	—
Perf/Watt	104.9+208%	34.1

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the Radeon R9 A375 launched at $49. On MSRP, Radeon R9 A375 was 67.1% cheaper ($100 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 20.9 (Radeon R9 A375) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 152.6% better value. The newer card here is GeForce GTX 1650 (2019 vs 2015).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 A375
MSRP	$149	$49-67%
Performance per Dollar	52.8+153%	20.9
Codename	TU117	Venus
Release	April 23 2019	2015
Ranking	#323	#877

Search GeForce GTX 1650 on Amazon

Search Radeon R9 A375 on Amazon

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.