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

✅+70.7% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Costs $500 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $649 MSRP).
✅Delivers 643.7% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 7.1 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $649 MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 Nano: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 Nano 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.
❌50.7% longer card at 229mm vs 152mm.

Radeon R9 Nano

2015

Why buy it

✅Measures 152mm instead of 229mm, a 77mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (4,609 vs 7,869).
❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌
335.6% HIGHER MSRP
$649 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 7.1 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($649 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon R9 Nano

2015

Why buy it

✅+70.7% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Costs $500 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $649 MSRP).
✅Delivers 643.7% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 7.1 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $649 MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 Nano: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 Nano is already obsolete for modern gaming.

Why buy it

✅Measures 152mm instead of 229mm, a 77mm 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.
❌50.7% longer card at 229mm vs 152mm.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (4,609 vs 7,869).
❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌
335.6% HIGHER MSRP
$649 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 7.1 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($649 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon R9 Nano?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 7,869 vs 4,609 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 card with no meaningful modern upscaling stack, while Radeon R9 Nano 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, 70.7% more raw performance headroom, more VRAM at 4 GB instead of 2 GB, 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 today, but it is not as lopsided as a simple winner label makes it sound. GeForce GTX 1650 is about $500 cheaper on MSRP at $149 MSRP versus $649 MSRP, and you are getting 70.7% higher G3D Mark. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 643.7%. That is why the better overall card still comes out as the smarter buy today, not just the faster one.

Is Radeon R9 Nano still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

Yes. Radeon R9 Nano is still a strong modern gaming GPU: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It remains a good buy when you can get it meaningfully cheaper than the alternative around $649 MSRP, even if GeForce GTX 1650 is still the cleaner recommendation on overall value today.

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.

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Radeon R9 Nano Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Nano
1080p
low	94 FPS	116 FPS
medium	83 FPS	99 FPS
high	70 FPS	79 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	49 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	93 FPS
medium	74 FPS	78 FPS
high	60 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	34 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	33 FPS
medium	39 FPS	30 FPS
high	27 FPS	22 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	19 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 Nano

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Nano
1080p
low	136 FPS	207 FPS
medium	113 FPS	166 FPS
high	94 FPS	138 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	104 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	156 FPS
medium	62 FPS	124 FPS
high	44 FPS	104 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	101 FPS
medium	27 FPS	80 FPS
high	21 FPS	65 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	49 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 Nano

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Nano
1080p
low	323 FPS	207 FPS
medium	283 FPS	166 FPS
high	205 FPS	138 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	104 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	156 FPS
medium	202 FPS	124 FPS
high	151 FPS	104 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	104 FPS
medium	117 FPS	83 FPS
high	79 FPS	69 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	52 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 Nano

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Nano
1080p
low	261 FPS	196 FPS
medium	211 FPS	164 FPS
high	191 FPS	138 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	104 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	137 FPS
medium	158 FPS	117 FPS
high	135 FPS	104 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	82 FPS
medium	74 FPS	68 FPS
high	65 FPS	55 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	42 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 Nano

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

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

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 Nano

The Radeon R9 Nano is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 27 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 175W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,609 points. Launch price was $649.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 Nano's 4,609 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 70.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 Nano uses GCN 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4,096 (Radeon R9 Nano). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8.192 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 Nano). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1000 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Nano
G3D Mark Score	7,869+71%	4,609
Architecture	Turing	GCN 3.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	4096+357%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	8.192 TFLOPS+175%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+67%	1000 MHz
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	256+357%
L1 Cache	0.88 MB	1 MB+14%
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

✨

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 Nano relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Nano
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 Nano has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 512 GB/s (Radeon R9 Nano) — a 300% advantage for the Radeon R9 Nano. Bus width: 128-bit vs 4096-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Radeon R9 Nano) — the Radeon R9 Nano has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Nano
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	HBM
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	512 GB/s+300%
Bus Width	128-bit	4096-bit+3100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (Radeon R9 Nano). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Nano
DirectX	12	12
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 Nano). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 6.0.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Nano
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 3.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 6.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	—

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 Nano's 175W — a 80% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 550W (Radeon R9 Nano). Power connectors: None vs 1x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 152mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Nano
TDP	75W-57%	175W
Recommended PSU	300W-45%	550W
Power Connector	None	1x 8-pin
Length	229mm	152mm
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C	—
Perf/Watt	104.9+299%	26.3

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 Nano launched at $649. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 77% less ($500 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7.1 (Radeon R9 Nano) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 643.7% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).