
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon R9 M485X
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
- ✅+107% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $301 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 525.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 8.4 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 M485X: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 M485X 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.
Radeon R9 M485X
2016Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (3,801 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌202% HIGHER MSRP$450 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 8.4 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($450 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon R9 M485X
2016Why buy it
- ✅+107% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $301 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 525.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 8.4 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $450 MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 M485X: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 M485X is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (3,801 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌202% HIGHER MSRP$450 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 8.4 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($450 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon R9 M485X?
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 M485X 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 M485X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 80 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 66 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 52 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 34 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 67 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 56 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 40 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 25 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 25 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 23 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 15 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 13 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M485X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 102 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 79 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 65 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 48 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 61 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 43 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 33 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 25 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 24 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 17 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 14 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 10 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M485X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 171 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 114 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 86 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 128 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 103 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 86 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 64 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 86 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 68 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 57 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 43 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M485X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 146 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 117 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 100 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 82 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 107 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 87 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 75 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 58 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 63 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 48 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 37 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 26 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 M485X

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 M485X
Radeon R9 M485X
The Radeon R9 M485X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 15 2016. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 723 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,801 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 M485X's 3,801 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 107%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 M485X uses GCN 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,048 (Radeon R9 M485X). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.961 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M485X).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M485X |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+107% | 3,801 |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2048+129% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 2.961 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 128+129% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+75% | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 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 M485X relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M485X |
|---|---|---|
| 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 M485X 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. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 M485X) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M485X |
|---|---|---|
| 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+100% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (Radeon R9 M485X). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M485X |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+17% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 M485X). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 6.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Radeon R9 M485X).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M485X |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCE 3.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | UVD 6.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,HEVC,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 M485X's 250W — a 107.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon R9 M485X). Power connectors: None vs Mobile. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M485X |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-70% | 250W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | Mobile |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+590% | 15.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 M485X launched at $450. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 66.9% less ($301 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8.4 (Radeon R9 M485X) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 528.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2016).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M485X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-67% | $450 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+529% | 8.4 |
| Codename | TU117 | Amethyst |
| Release | April 23 2019 | May 15 2016 |
| Ranking | #323 | #519 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













