GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon RX 780
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon RX 780 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 780 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 780: 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 $350 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 244.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 15.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 180W, a 105W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon RX 780 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
- ❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
Radeon RX 780
2024Why buy it
- ✅54.3% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
- ✅Better long-term bet: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 5nm gives it a newer hardware base for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌234.9% HIGHER MSRP$499 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 15.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($499 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌140% higher power demand at 180W vs 75W.
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 780 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 780
The Radeon RX 780 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in September 11 2024. It features the RDNA 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1295 MHz to 2335 MHz. It has 3840 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 180W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 60 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,658 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 and the Radeon RX 780 reaches 7,658 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX 780 uses RDNA 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3,840 (Radeon RX 780). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 35.87 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 780). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2335 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 780 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+3% | 7,658 |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 3.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 3840+329% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 35.87 TFLOPS+1102% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2335 MHz+40% |
| ROPs | 32 | 96+200% |
| TMUs | 56 | 240+329% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+17% | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The clearest feature edge for the Radeon RX 780 is support for FSR Frame Generation + AFMF. 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 780 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 780 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards ship with 4 GB of video memory. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and System on the Radeon RX 780. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Radeon RX 780) — the Radeon RX 780 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 780 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | Shared |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | System |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | System |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (12_2) (Radeon RX 780). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 780 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_2) |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs RDNA 3 Dual Media Engine (Radeon RX 780). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Radeon RX 780).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 780 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | RDNA 3 Dual Media Engine |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | VCN 4.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon RX 780's 180W — a 82.4% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon RX 780). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 780 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-58% | 180W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-18% | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+147% | 42.5 |
Value Analysis
At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the Radeon RX 780 launched at $499. On MSRP, GeForce GTX 1650 was 70.1% cheaper ($350 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 15.3 (Radeon RX 780) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 245.1% better value. The newer card here is Radeon RX 780 (2024 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 780 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-70% | $499 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+245% | 15.3 |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 32 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | September 11 2024 |
| Ranking | #323 | #131 |
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.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 780
