GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon RX Vega 64
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon RX Vega 64 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 Vega 64 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 Vega 64: 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 $499 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 88.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 28.0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
- ✅Radeon RX Vega 64 is already legacy-tier future-proofing, so GeForce GTX 1650 is the less risky modern option long term.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 295W, a 220W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon RX Vega 64 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
Radeon RX Vega 64
2017Why buy it
- ✅83.5% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌2017 hardware with 8 GB of VRAM already sits in legacy territory for modern games.
- ❌234.9% HIGHER MSRP$499 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 28.0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($499 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌293.3% higher power demand at 295W vs 75W.
- ❌16.6% longer card at 267mm 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 Vega 64 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 Vega 64
The Radeon RX Vega 64 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 7 2017. It features the GCN 5.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1247 MHz to 1546 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 295W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 13,949 points. Launch price was $499.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon RX Vega 64's 13,949 — the Radeon RX Vega 64 leads by 77.3%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX Vega 64 uses GCN 5.0, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4,096 (Radeon RX Vega 64). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.66 TFLOPS (Radeon RX Vega 64). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1546 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX Vega 64 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 13,949+77% |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 5.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 4096+357% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 12.66 TFLOPS+324% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+8% | 1546 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 256+357% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 1 MB+14% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce GTX 1650 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon RX Vega 64 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX Vega 64 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| 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 Vega 64 carries 8 GB. Radeon RX Vega 64 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 484 GB/s (Radeon RX Vega 64) — a 278.1% advantage for the Radeon RX Vega 64. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and 2048-bit on the Radeon RX Vega 64. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Radeon RX Vega 64) — the Radeon RX Vega 64 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX Vega 64 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | HBM2 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 484 GB/s+278% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 2048-bit+1500% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.1 (Radeon RX Vega 64). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX Vega 64 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+27% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 4.0 (Radeon RX Vega 64). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 7.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Radeon RX Vega 64).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX Vega 64 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCE 4.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | UVD 7.0 |
| 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 Vega 64's 295W — a 118.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 750W (Radeon RX Vega 64). Power connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX Vega 64 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-75% | 295W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-60% | 750W |
| Power Connector | None | 2x 8-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-18% | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+122% | 47.3 |
Value Analysis
At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the Radeon RX Vega 64 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 28.0 (Radeon RX Vega 64) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 88.6% better value. The newer card here is GeForce GTX 1650 (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX Vega 64 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-70% | $499 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+89% | 28.0 |
| Codename | TU117 | Vega 10 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | August 7 2017 |
| Ranking | #323 | #171 |
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 Vega 64
