
GeForce GTX 1650

Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon Vega Frontier Edition 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 Vega Frontier Edition 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 Vega Frontier Edition: 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 $850 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 313.7% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 12.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs Unknown).
- ✅Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is already obsolete for modern gaming, so GeForce GTX 1650 is the less risky modern option long term.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 300W, a 225W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon Vega Frontier Edition across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
2017Why buy it
- ✅50.0% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
Trade-offs
- ❌Less VRAM, with Unknown vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌2017 hardware with Unknown of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
- ❌570.5% HIGHER MSRP$999 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 12.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($999 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌300% higher power demand at 300W 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 Vega Frontier Edition 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 Vega Frontier Edition
The Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 27 2017. It features the GCN 5.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1382 MHz to 1600 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,753 points. Launch price was $999.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon Vega Frontier Edition's 12,753 — the Radeon Vega Frontier Edition leads by 62.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon Vega Frontier Edition uses GCN 5.0, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4,096 (Radeon Vega Frontier Edition). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 13.11 TFLOPS (Radeon Vega Frontier Edition). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1600 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Vega Frontier Edition |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 12,753+62% |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 5.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 4096+357% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 13.11 TFLOPS+339% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+4% | 1600 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 Vega Frontier Edition leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Vega Frontier Edition |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Vega Frontier Edition carries 0 MB. GeForce GTX 1650 gives you 100+% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and System on the Radeon Vega Frontier Edition. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Radeon Vega Frontier Edition) — the Radeon Vega Frontier Edition has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Vega Frontier Edition |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | Shared System RAM |
| 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 12.1 (Radeon Vega Frontier Edition). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Vega Frontier Edition |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Vega Frontier Edition). 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 Vega Frontier Edition).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Vega Frontier Edition |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Vega Frontier Edition's 300W — a 120% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1W (Radeon Vega Frontier Edition). Power connectors: None vs Integrated. Card length: 229mm vs 268mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Vega Frontier Edition |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-75% | 300W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W | 1W-100% |
| Power Connector | None | Integrated |
| Length | 229mm | 268mm |
| Height | 111mm | 105mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| 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 Vega Frontier Edition launched at $999. On MSRP, GeForce GTX 1650 was 85.1% cheaper ($850 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.8 (Radeon Vega Frontier Edition) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 312.5% better value. The newer card here is GeForce GTX 1650 (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Vega Frontier Edition |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-85% | $999 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+313% | 12.8 |
| Codename | TU117 | Vega 10 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | June 27 2017 |
| Ranking | #323 | #203 |
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.















