
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon RX 5700M
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
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 180W, a 105W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 12,669).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like FSR Frame Generation (2023).
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Radeon RX 5700M
2020Why buy it
- ✅+61% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation (2023).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌140% higher power demand at 180W vs 75W.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon RX 5700M
2020Why buy it
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 180W, a 105W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅+61% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation (2023).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 12,669).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like FSR Frame Generation (2023).
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌140% higher power demand at 180W vs 75W.
Quick Answers
So, is Radeon RX 5700M better than GeForce GTX 1650?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is GeForce GTX 1650 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 RX 5700M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 195 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 181 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 156 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 121 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 163 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 136 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 115 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 93 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 84 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 71 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 56 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 50 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 269 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 224 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 158 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 115 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 160 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 131 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 99 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 73 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 86 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 70 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 56 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 40 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 570 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 456 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 380 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 285 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 428 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 342 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 285 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 214 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 285 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 228 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 190 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 143 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 432 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 361 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 301 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 259 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 360 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 303 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 239 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 199 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 194 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 155 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 140 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 116 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 5700M

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 RX 5700M
Radeon RX 5700M
The Radeon RX 5700M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in March 1 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1465 MHz to 1720 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 180W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,669 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon RX 5700M's 12,669 — the Radeon RX 5700M leads by 61%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX 5700M uses RDNA 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,304 (Radeon RX 5700M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7.926 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 5700M). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1720 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 12,669+61% |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2304+157% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 7.926 TFLOPS+166% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 1720 MHz+3% |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 144+157% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 8 MB+700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the Radeon RX 5700M is support for FSR Frame Generation. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The GeForce GTX 1650 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.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 RX 5700M relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700M |
|---|---|---|
| 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 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon RX 5700M has 8 GB. The Radeon RX 5700M offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 384 GB/s (Radeon RX 5700M) — a 200% advantage for the Radeon RX 5700M. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8 MB (Radeon RX 5700M) — the Radeon RX 5700M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 384 GB/s+200% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 8 MB+700% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.1 (Radeon RX 5700M). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.1 |
| 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 VCN 2.0 (Radeon RX 5700M). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 2.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Radeon RX 5700M).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCN 2.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | VCN 2.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon RX 5700M's 180W — a 82.4% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Radeon RX 5700M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-58% | 180W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-40% | 500W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-18% | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+49% | 70.4 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon RX 5700M is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5700M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | — |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 10 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | March 1 2020 |
| Ranking | #323 | #751 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













