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

✅173.2% more average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
❌87.5% higher power demand at 75W vs 40W.

RadeonT 660M

2023

Why buy it

✅Draws 40W instead of 75W, a 35W reduction.
✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

RadeonT 660M

2023

Why buy it

✅173.2% more average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).

Why buy it

✅Draws 40W instead of 75W, a 35W reduction.
✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
❌87.5% higher power demand at 75W vs 40W.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than RadeonT 660M?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is clearly the better overall GPU here. GeForce GTX 1650 averages 173.2% more FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data. You are also looking at 7,869 vs 2,221 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 card with no meaningful modern upscaling stack, while RadeonT 660M is a 2023 model from an older generation with FSR upscaling. 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?

RadeonT 660M is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2023 generation instead of 2019, better upscaling support with FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 (2025) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack, and a 6nm process instead of 12nm. That broader feature stack should age better as more games lean on modern upscaling and frame-generation support.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

GeForce GTX 1650 is the smarter buy today, but it is not as lopsided as a simple winner label makes it sound. GeForce GTX 1650 is priced in an unclear MSRP range at $149 MSRP versus an unclear MSRP, and you are getting 173.2% more estimated average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data and 254.3% higher G3D Mark. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 100+%. RadeonT 660M is the newer 2023 card, so it still has a real case if you care more about newer architecture, lower power draw (40W vs 75W), and future-proofing than about squeezing out the strongest gaming value today.

When does RadeonT 660M make more sense than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes. RadeonT 660M is still an excellent gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It makes more sense if your priority is newer architecture, lower power draw (40W vs 75W), future-proofing, and staying closer to an unclear MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of GeForce GTX 1650. The trade-off is that GeForce GTX 1650 currently gives you 254.3% higher G3D Mark and 173.2% more estimated average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 100+%.

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

RadeonT 660M Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 660M
1080p
low	94 FPS	36 FPS
medium	83 FPS	24 FPS
high	70 FPS	16 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	12 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	23 FPS
medium	74 FPS	14 FPS
high	60 FPS	8 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	6 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	14 FPS
medium	39 FPS	9 FPS
high	27 FPS	6 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	4 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open RadeonT 660M

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 660M
1080p
low	136 FPS	81 FPS
medium	113 FPS	50 FPS
high	94 FPS	37 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	23 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	23 FPS
medium	62 FPS	17 FPS
high	44 FPS	12 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	9 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	7 FPS
medium	27 FPS	5 FPS
high	21 FPS	4 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	3 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open RadeonT 660M

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 660M
1080p
low	323 FPS	100 FPS
medium	283 FPS	80 FPS
high	205 FPS	67 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	50 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	75 FPS
medium	202 FPS	60 FPS
high	151 FPS	50 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	37 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	50 FPS
medium	117 FPS	40 FPS
high	79 FPS	33 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	25 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open RadeonT 660M

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 660M
1080p
low	261 FPS	100 FPS
medium	211 FPS	80 FPS
high	191 FPS	67 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	50 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	75 FPS
medium	158 FPS	60 FPS
high	135 FPS	50 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	37 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	50 FPS
medium	74 FPS	40 FPS
high	65 FPS	33 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	25 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open RadeonT 660M

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and RadeonT 660M

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.

RadeonT 660M

The RadeonT 660M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 3 2023. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1500 MHz to 1900 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 40W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 6 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,221 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the RadeonT 660M's 2,221 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 254.3%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the RadeonT 660M uses RDNA 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 384 (RadeonT 660M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.459 TFLOPS (RadeonT 660M). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1900 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 660M
G3D Mark Score	7,869+254%	2,221
Architecture	Turing	RDNA 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	6 nm
Shading Units	896+133%	384
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+105%	1.459 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz	1900 MHz+14%
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	56+133%	24
L1 Cache	896 KB+600%	128 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 1650 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The RadeonT 660M relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 660M
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 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the RadeonT 660M has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 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 (RadeonT 660M) — the RadeonT 660M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 660M
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
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 (12_2) (RadeonT 660M). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 660M
DirectX	12	12 (12_2)
Vulkan	1.4+8%	1.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCN 3.0 (RadeonT 660M). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 3.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1,JPEG (RadeonT 660M).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 660M
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCN 3.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	VCN 3.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1,JPEG

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the RadeonT 660M's 40W — a 60.9% difference. The RadeonT 660M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (RadeonT 660M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.