
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon R9 M360
Popular choices:
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
2019Why buy it
- ✅+332.6% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $151 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 771% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 6.1 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅700% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 512 MB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 M360: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 M360 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.
- ❌22800% longer card at 229mm vs 1mm.
Radeon R9 M360
2015Why buy it
- ✅Measures 1mm instead of 229mm, a 228mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (1,819 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.
- ❌101.3% HIGHER MSRP$300 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 6.1 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($300 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon R9 M360
2015Why buy it
- ✅+332.6% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $151 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 771% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 6.1 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅700% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 512 MB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 M360: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 M360 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Why buy it
- ✅Measures 1mm instead of 229mm, a 228mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌22800% longer card at 229mm vs 1mm.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (1,819 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.
- ❌101.3% HIGHER MSRP$300 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 6.1 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($300 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon R9 M360?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Radeon R9 M360 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?
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
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M360 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 22 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 13 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 8 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 4 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 13 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 7 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 3 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 2 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 5 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 3 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 1 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 1 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M360 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 51 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 27 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 19 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 13 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 15 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 9 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 6 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 5 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 5 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 3 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 2 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 2 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M360 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 82 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 65 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 55 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 41 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 61 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 49 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 41 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 31 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 41 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 33 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 27 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 20 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M360 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 59 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 48 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 38 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 30 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 35 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 29 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 25 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 19 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 23 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 18 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 15 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 11 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 M360

GeForce GTX 1650
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 M360
Radeon R9 M360
The Radeon R9 M360 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 5 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 900 MHz to 925 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,819 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 M360's 1,819 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 332.6%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 M360 uses GCN 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 512 (Radeon R9 M360). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.9472 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M360). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 925 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M360 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+333% | 1,819 |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+75% | 512 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+215% | 0.9472 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+80% | 925 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+75% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+600% | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 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 M360 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M360 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 M360 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. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.25 MB (Radeon R9 M360) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M360 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+700% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | Unknown |
| 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_0 (Radeon R9 M360). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M360 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12_0 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon R9 M360). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 3.1.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M360 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 M360's 75W — a 0% difference. The Radeon R9 M360 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon R9 M360). Power connectors: None vs Mobile. Card length: 229mm vs 1mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M360 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | Mobile |
| Length | 229mm | 1mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+332% | 24.3 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 M360 launched at $300. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 50.3% less ($151 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 6.1 (Radeon R9 M360) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 765.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M360 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-50% | $300 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+766% | 6.1 |
| Codename | TU117 | Tropo |
| Release | April 23 2019 | May 5 2015 |
| Ranking | #323 | #711 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













