
GeForce GTX 1650

Radeon RX 5700 XT
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon RX 5700 XT 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 RX 5700 XT 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 RX 5700 XT: 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
- ✅Costs $300 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $449 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 46.5% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 36.0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $449 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 225W, a 150W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 272mm, a 43mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon RX 5700 XT across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like FSR Frame Generation (2023).
- ❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
Radeon RX 5700 XT
2019Why buy it
- ✅69.0% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation (2023).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅Better long-term bet: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm gives it a newer hardware base for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌201.3% HIGHER MSRP$449 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 36.0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($449 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌200% higher power demand at 225W vs 75W.
- ❌18.8% longer card at 272mm vs 229mm.
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 RX 5700 XT 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 RX 5700 XT
The Radeon RX 5700 XT is manufactured by AMD. It was released in July 7 2019. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1605 MHz to 1905 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 16,183 points. Launch price was $399.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon RX 5700 XT's 16,183 — the Radeon RX 5700 XT leads by 105.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX 5700 XT uses RDNA 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,560 (Radeon RX 5700 XT). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 9.754 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 5700 XT). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1905 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 16,183+106% |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2560+186% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 9.754 TFLOPS+227% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 1905 MHz+14% |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 160+186% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The clearest feature edge for the Radeon RX 5700 XT is support for FSR Frame Generation. In games that support it, that can smooth out motion and lift perceived FPS. The GeForce GTX 1650 does not have comparable native support in the same tier.The GeForce GTX 1650 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon RX 5700 XT leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR Frame Generation |
| 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 RX 5700 XT carries 8 GB. Radeon RX 5700 XT gives you 100% 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 448 GB/s (Radeon RX 5700 XT) — a 250% advantage for the Radeon RX 5700 XT. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and 256-bit on the Radeon RX 5700 XT. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Radeon RX 5700 XT) — the Radeon RX 5700 XT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 448 GB/s+250% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (Radeon RX 5700 XT). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 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 (Radeon RX 5700 XT). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC (Radeon RX 5700 XT).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCE |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | UVD |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,H.265/HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon RX 5700 XT's 225W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 600W (Radeon RX 5700 XT). Power connectors: None vs 6-pin + 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 272mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-67% | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-50% | 600W |
| Power Connector | None | 6-pin + 8-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 272mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-7% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+46% | 71.9 |
Value Analysis
At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the Radeon RX 5700 XT launched at $449. On MSRP, GeForce GTX 1650 was 66.8% cheaper ($300 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 36.0 (Radeon RX 5700 XT) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 46.7% better value.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-67% | $449 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+47% | 36.0 |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 10 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | July 7 2019 |
| Ranking | #323 | #128 |
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.















