GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 A375

NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 1650

2019Core: 1485 MHzBoost: 1665 MHz

Popular choices:

VS
AMD

Radeon R9 A375

2015Core: 1015 MHzBoost: 925 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

  • +668.5% higher PassMark G3D performance.
  • 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).
  • Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 A375: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 A375 is already obsolete for modern gaming.

Trade-offs

  • Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
  • 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 PassMark G3D performance (1,024 vs 7,869).
  • Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
  • Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
  • Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 20.9 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($49 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon R9 A375?
Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 7,869 vs 1,024 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 card with no meaningful modern upscaling stack, while Radeon R9 A375 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, 668.5% more raw performance headroom, more VRAM at 4 GB instead of 512 MB, 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 204.1% more expensive on MSRP at $149 MSRP versus $49 MSRP, and you are getting 668.5% higher G3D Mark. Radeon R9 A375 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.
Is Radeon R9 A375 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?
No, not for a fresh gaming build. Radeon R9 A375 is 2015 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM, 1,024 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 A375
1080p
low94 FPS19 FPS
medium83 FPS12 FPS
high70 FPS8 FPS
ultra58 FPS4 FPS
1440p
low87 FPS13 FPS
medium74 FPS7 FPS
high60 FPS3 FPS
ultra50 FPS2 FPS
4K
low41 FPS5 FPS
medium39 FPS3 FPS
high27 FPS1 FPS
ultra24 FPS1 FPS
Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

PresetGeForce GTX 1650Radeon R9 A375
1080p
low136 FPS42 FPS
medium113 FPS21 FPS
high94 FPS15 FPS
ultra71 FPS10 FPS
1440p
low79 FPS19 FPS
medium62 FPS10 FPS
high44 FPS7 FPS
ultra35 FPS5 FPS
4K
low36 FPS6 FPS
medium27 FPS4 FPS
high21 FPS3 FPS
ultra15 FPS2 FPS
League of Legends

League of Legends

PresetGeForce GTX 1650Radeon R9 A375
1080p
low323 FPS46 FPS
medium283 FPS37 FPS
high205 FPS31 FPS
ultra169 FPS23 FPS
1440p
low225 FPS35 FPS
medium202 FPS28 FPS
high151 FPS23 FPS
ultra117 FPS17 FPS
4K
low130 FPS23 FPS
medium117 FPS18 FPS
high79 FPS15 FPS
ultra50 FPS12 FPS
Valorant

Valorant

PresetGeForce GTX 1650Radeon R9 A375
1080p
low261 FPS46 FPS
medium211 FPS37 FPS
high191 FPS31 FPS
ultra166 FPS23 FPS
1440p
low201 FPS35 FPS
medium158 FPS28 FPS
high135 FPS23 FPS
ultra113 FPS17 FPS
4K
low99 FPS23 FPS
medium74 FPS18 FPS
high65 FPS15 FPS
ultra51 FPS12 FPS

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 A375

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 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.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon 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 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Radeon R9 A375 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon 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 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 A375 has 512 MB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon 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.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon 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.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon 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.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon 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

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 A375 launched at $49. The Radeon R9 A375 costs 67.1% less ($100 savings) on MSRP. 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 GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon 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