GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon R9 M275
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 M275 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 M275 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 M275: 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
- ✅453.7% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Costs $151 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1321% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 3.7 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅700% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 512 MB).
- ✅Radeon R9 M275 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.
Radeon R9 M275
2014Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
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.
- ❌2014 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
- ❌101.3% HIGHER MSRP$300 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 3.7 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($300 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
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 M275 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 M275
The Radeon R9 M275 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 28 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 900 MHz to 925 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,115 points. Launch price was $799.99.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 M275's 1,115 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 605.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 M275 uses GCN 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 640 (Radeon R9 M275). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.184 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M275). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 925 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+606% | 1,115 |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+40% | 640 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+152% | 1.184 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+80% | 925 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+40% | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+460% | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce GTX 1650 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon R9 M275 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 M275 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 bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 64 GB/s (Radeon R9 M275) — a 100% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and 128-bit on the Radeon R9 M275. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.25 MB (Radeon R9 M275) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+700% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s+100% | 64 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (FL11_1) (Radeon R9 M275). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.1. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 6.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (FL11_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.4+17% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+12% | 4.1 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 6+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs UVD3 (Radeon R9 M275). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCE. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,Flash (Radeon R9 M275).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | UVD3 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | VCE |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,Flash |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 M275's 75W — a 0% difference. The Radeon R9 M275 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon R9 M275). Power connectors: None vs Mobile. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | Mobile |
| Length | 229mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+604% | 14.9 |
Value Analysis
At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the Radeon R9 M275 launched at $300. On MSRP, GeForce GTX 1650 was 50.3% cheaper ($151 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3.7 (Radeon R9 M275) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 1327% better value. The newer card here is GeForce GTX 1650 (2019 vs 2014).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-50% | $300 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+1327% | 3.7 |
| Codename | TU117 | Venus |
| Release | April 23 2019 | January 28 2014 |
| Ranking | #323 | #851 |
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 M275
