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 $50 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
✅Measures 229mm instead of 241mm, a 12mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 11,654).
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 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.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 52.8 vs 58.6 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).

Radeon RX 7400

2025

Why buy it

✅+48.1% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 10.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 58.6 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($199 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer clear downsides in this head-to-head, aside from the usual pricing and availability swings.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon RX 7400

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $50 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
✅Measures 229mm instead of 241mm, a 12mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Why buy it

✅+48.1% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 10.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 58.6 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($199 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 11,654).
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 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.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 52.8 vs 58.6 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Fewer clear downsides in this head-to-head, aside from the usual pricing and availability swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon RX 7400 better than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes. Radeon RX 7400 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 11,654 vs 7,869 in G3D Mark. On top of that, Radeon RX 7400 is a 2025 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 7400 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2025 generation instead of 2019, 48.1% more raw performance headroom, more VRAM at 8 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 7400 is the smarter buy today, but it is not as lopsided as a simple winner label makes it sound. Radeon RX 7400 is about 33.6% more expensive on MSRP at $199 MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 48.1% higher G3D Mark. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 10.9%. That is why the better overall card still comes out as the smarter buy today, not just the faster one.

Is GeForce GTX 1650 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 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 $149 MSRP, even if Radeon RX 7400 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 RX 7400 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
1080p
low	94 FPS	205 FPS
medium	83 FPS	187 FPS
high	70 FPS	162 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	124 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	172 FPS
medium	74 FPS	139 FPS
high	60 FPS	121 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	98 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	89 FPS
medium	39 FPS	74 FPS
high	27 FPS	58 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	50 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX 7400

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
1080p
low	136 FPS	340 FPS
medium	113 FPS	282 FPS
high	94 FPS	222 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	166 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	211 FPS
medium	62 FPS	175 FPS
high	44 FPS	136 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	103 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	97 FPS
medium	27 FPS	79 FPS
high	21 FPS	65 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	47 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX 7400

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
1080p
low	323 FPS	524 FPS
medium	283 FPS	420 FPS
high	205 FPS	350 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	262 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	393 FPS
medium	202 FPS	315 FPS
high	151 FPS	262 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	197 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	262 FPS
medium	117 FPS	210 FPS
high	79 FPS	175 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	131 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX 7400

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
1080p
low	261 FPS	524 FPS
medium	211 FPS	420 FPS
high	191 FPS	350 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	262 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	393 FPS
medium	158 FPS	315 FPS
high	135 FPS	262 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	197 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	262 FPS
medium	74 FPS	210 FPS
high	65 FPS	175 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	131 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX 7400

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 7400

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 7400

The Radeon RX 7400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 8 2025. It features the RDNA 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1452 MHz to 2300 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 43W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 28 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,654 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon RX 7400's 11,654 — the Radeon RX 7400 leads by 48.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX 7400 uses RDNA 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,792 (Radeon RX 7400). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 16.49 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 7400). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2300 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
G3D Mark Score	7,869	11,654+48%
Architecture	Turing	RDNA 3.0
Process Node	12 nm	6 nm
Shading Units	896	1792+100%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	16.49 TFLOPS+453%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz	2300 MHz+38%
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	112+100%
L1 Cache	896 KB+75%	512 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

A critical advantage for the Radeon RX 7400 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 7400 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
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 7400 has 8 GB. The Radeon RX 7400 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Radeon RX 7400) — the Radeon RX 7400 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	128 GB/s
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (Radeon RX 7400). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
DirectX	12	12.2+2%
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 4.0 (Radeon RX 7400). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Radeon RX 7400).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCN 4.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	VCN 4.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon RX 7400's 43W — a 54.2% difference. The Radeon RX 7400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 450W (Radeon RX 7400). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 229mm vs 241mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
TDP	75W	43W-43%
Recommended PSU	300W-33%	450W
Power Connector	None	None
Length	229mm	241mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C-7%	75°C
Perf/Watt	104.9	271.0+158%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon RX 7400 launched at $199. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 25.1% less ($50 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 58.6 (Radeon RX 7400) — the Radeon RX 7400 offers 11% better value. The Radeon RX 7400 is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2019).