GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon X1300
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon X1300 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 X1300 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 X1300: 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
- ✅6866.0% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Delivers 9005.5% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0.6 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).
- ✅1500% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 256 MB).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 100W, a 25W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
- ❌36.3% longer card at 229mm vs 168mm.
Radeon X1300
2020Why buy it
- ✅Costs $49 less on MSRP ($100 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ✅Measures 168mm instead of 229mm, a 61mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 256 MB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Older hardware, 256 MB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0.6 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($100 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌33.3% higher power demand at 100W 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 X1300 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 X1300
The Radeon X1300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 28 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1327 MHz to 1645 MHz. It has 1408 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 58 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon X1300's 58 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 13467.2%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon X1300 uses RDNA 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,408 (Radeon X1300). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4.632 TFLOPS (Radeon X1300). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1645 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon X1300 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+13467% | 58 |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 1408+57% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 4.632 TFLOPS+55% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+1% | 1645 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 88+57% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1.5 MB+50% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce GTX 1650 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon X1300 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon X1300 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 X1300 carries 256 MB. GeForce GTX 1650 gives you 1500% 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 64-bit on the Radeon X1300. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.5 MB (Radeon X1300) — the Radeon X1300 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon X1300 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+1500% | 0.25 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1.5 MB+50% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 9_0c (Radeon X1300). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon X1300 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12+33% | 9_0c |
| Max Displays | 3+50% | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs Avivo (Radeon X1300). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs Avivo. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,MPEG-4,MPEG-2,DivX,WMV9 (Radeon X1300).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon X1300 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | Avivo |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | Avivo |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,MPEG-4,MPEG-2,DivX,WMV9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon X1300's 100W — a 28.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon X1300). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 168mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon X1300 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-25% | 100W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 168mm |
| Height | 111mm | 69mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+17383% | 0.6 |
Value Analysis
At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the Radeon X1300 launched at $100. On MSRP, Radeon X1300 was 32.9% cheaper ($49 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.6 (Radeon X1300) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 8700% better value. The newer card here is Radeon X1300 (2020 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon X1300 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $100-33% |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+8700% | 0.6 |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 14 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | May 28 2020 |
| Ranking | #323 | #336 |
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 X1300
