GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon RX 6900 XT

NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 1650

2019Core: 1485 MHzBoost: 1665 MHz

Popular choices:

VS
AMD

Radeon RX 6900 XT

2020Core: 1825 MHzBoost: 2250 MHz

Popular choices:

GTX 1650

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

2019

Why buy it

  • Costs $850 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
  • Delivers 97.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 26.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
  • Draws 75W instead of 300W, a 225W reduction.
  • Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

  • Lower average FPS than Radeon RX 6900 XT across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
  • Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 16 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
  • No equivalent frame-generation stack like FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (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 6900 XT

2020

Why buy it

  • 193.7% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
  • Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
  • 300% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (16 GB vs 4 GB).
  • More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

  • 570.5% HIGHER MSRP
    $999 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
  • Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 26.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($999 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
  • 300% higher power demand at 300W vs 75W.
  • 16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon RX 6900 XT better than GeForce GTX 1650?
Yes. Radeon RX 6900 XT is clearly the better overall GPU here. Radeon RX 6900 XT averages 193.7% more FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. You are also looking at 26,729 vs 7,869 in G3D Mark. On top of that, Radeon RX 6900 XT is a 2020 card with FSR 3 + AFMF, while GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 model from an older generation with no meaningful modern upscaling stack. 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?
Radeon RX 6900 XT is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2020 generation instead of 2019, 239.7% more raw performance headroom, more VRAM at 16 GB instead of 4 GB, and better upscaling support with FSR 3 (2023) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack and better frame-generation support with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack. 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?
Radeon RX 6900 XT is about 570.5% more expensive on MSRP at $999 MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 193.7% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and 239.7% higher G3D Mark. GeForce GTX 1650 still holds the G3D-per-dollar lead, so the performance win comes with a real value premium. If you are comfortable paying the premium for the stronger gaming result, Radeon RX 6900 XT is the one to buy. If staying closer to budget matters more, GeForce GTX 1650 still makes more sense on price alone, but the performance trade-off is much harder to justify by current standards.
Is GeForce GTX 1650 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?
Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is still a strong gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. This mostly comes down to price. If you want to stay closer to $149 MSRP, it remains a strong choice; if you are comfortable paying more, Radeon RX 6900 XT earns that extra money with a clearly stronger gaming result and a more complete overall package.

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

Path of Exile 2

PresetGeForce GTX 1650Radeon RX 6900 XT
1080p
low94 FPS258 FPS
medium83 FPS235 FPS
high70 FPS203 FPS
ultra58 FPS176 FPS
1440p
low87 FPS242 FPS
medium74 FPS200 FPS
high60 FPS162 FPS
ultra50 FPS146 FPS
4K
low41 FPS171 FPS
medium39 FPS143 FPS
high27 FPS107 FPS
ultra24 FPS95 FPS
Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

PresetGeForce GTX 1650Radeon RX 6900 XT
1080p
low136 FPS601 FPS
medium113 FPS500 FPS
high94 FPS400 FPS
ultra71 FPS341 FPS
1440p
low79 FPS397 FPS
medium62 FPS330 FPS
high44 FPS271 FPS
ultra35 FPS221 FPS
4K
low36 FPS193 FPS
medium27 FPS162 FPS
high21 FPS135 FPS
ultra15 FPS111 FPS
League of Legends

League of Legends

PresetGeForce GTX 1650Radeon RX 6900 XT
1080p
low323 FPS924 FPS
medium283 FPS767 FPS
high205 FPS683 FPS
ultra169 FPS585 FPS
1440p
low225 FPS714 FPS
medium202 FPS587 FPS
high151 FPS510 FPS
ultra117 FPS432 FPS
4K
low130 FPS498 FPS
medium117 FPS412 FPS
high79 FPS353 FPS
ultra50 FPS290 FPS
Valorant

Valorant

PresetGeForce GTX 1650Radeon RX 6900 XT
1080p
low261 FPS684 FPS
medium211 FPS565 FPS
high191 FPS494 FPS
ultra166 FPS446 FPS
1440p
low201 FPS563 FPS
medium158 FPS471 FPS
high135 FPS408 FPS
ultra113 FPS360 FPS
4K
low99 FPS365 FPS
medium74 FPS317 FPS
high65 FPS290 FPS
ultra51 FPS256 FPS

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 6900 XT

NVIDIA

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.

AMD

Radeon RX 6900 XT

The Radeon RX 6900 XT is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 28 2020. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1825 MHz to 2250 MHz. It has 5120 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. It features 80 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 26,729 points. Launch price was $999.

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon RX 6900 XT's 26,729 — the Radeon RX 6900 XT leads by 239.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX 6900 XT uses RDNA 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5,120 (Radeon RX 6900 XT). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 23.04 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 6900 XT). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2250 MHz.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon RX 6900 XT
G3D Mark Score
7,869
26,729+240%
Architecture
Turing
RDNA 2.0
Process Node
12 nm
7 nm
Shading Units
896
5120+471%
Compute (TFLOPS)
2.984 TFLOPS
23.04 TFLOPS+672%
Boost Clock
1665 MHz
2250 MHz+35%
ROPs
32
128+300%
TMUs
56
320+471%
L1 Cache
0.88 MB
1 MB+14%
L2 Cache
1 MB
4 MB+300%

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

A critical advantage for the Radeon RX 6900 XT is support for FSR Frame Generation + AFMF. 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 6900 XT relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon RX 6900 XT
Upscaling Tech
Upscaling support
FSR 3
Frame Generation
Not Supported
FSR Frame Generation + AFMF
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 6900 XT has 16 GB. The Radeon RX 6900 XT offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 512 GB/s (Radeon RX 6900 XT) — a 300% advantage for the Radeon RX 6900 XT. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Radeon RX 6900 XT) — the Radeon RX 6900 XT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon RX 6900 XT
VRAM Capacity
4 GB
16 GB+300%
Memory Type
GDDR5
GDDR6
Memory Bandwidth
128 GB/s
512 GB/s+300%
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 Ultimate (Radeon RX 6900 XT). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon RX 6900 XT
DirectX
12
12 Ultimate
Vulkan
1.4+8%
1.3
OpenGL
4.6
4.6
Max Displays
3
4+33%
🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCN 3.0 (Radeon RX 6900 XT). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 3.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,AV1,VP9 (Radeon RX 6900 XT).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon RX 6900 XT
Encoder
NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
VCN 3.0
Decoder
NVDEC 4th gen
VCN 3.0
Codecs
H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9
H.264,H.265/HEVC,AV1,VP9
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon RX 6900 XT's 300W — a 120% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 850W (Radeon RX 6900 XT). Power connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2.5 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon RX 6900 XT
TDP
75W-75%
300W
Recommended PSU
300W-65%
850W
Power Connector
None
2x 8-pin
Length
229mm
267mm
Height
111mm
120mm
Slots
2-20%
2.5
Temp (Load)
70°C-13%
80°C
Perf/Watt
104.9+18%
89.1
💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon RX 6900 XT launched at $999. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 85.1% less ($850 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 26.8 (Radeon RX 6900 XT) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 97% better value. The Radeon RX 6900 XT is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650Radeon RX 6900 XT
MSRP
$149-85%
$999
Performance per Dollar
52.8+97%
26.8
Codename
TU117
Navi 21
Release
April 23 2019
October 28 2020
Ranking
#323
#35