GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon HD 6320
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Radeon HD 6320
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Radeon HD 6320
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2011). The GeForce GTX 1650 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon HD 6320 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 5253.1% higher G3D Mark score and 700% more VRAM (4 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon HD 6320.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6320 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+5253.1%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-5253.1%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+700%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $5), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 256.9% better value per dollar than the Radeon HD 6320.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6320 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+256.9%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75) | ✅More affordable ($5) |
Performance Check
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 7800X3D 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon HD 6320
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 HD 6320
The Radeon HD 6320 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 1 2011. It features the TeraScale 3 architecture. The core clock speed is 750 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 186W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 147 points. Launch price was $180.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon HD 6320's 147 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 5253.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon HD 6320 uses TeraScale 3, both on 12 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,280 (Radeon HD 6320). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.92 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 6320).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6320 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+5253% | 147 |
| Architecture | Turing | TeraScale 3 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 1280+43% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+55% | 1.92 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 80+43% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+180% | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6320 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon HD 6320 has 512 MB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (Radeon HD 6320) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6320 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+700% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 11.2 (Radeon HD 6320). OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6320 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12+7% | 11.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+2% | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs UVD 3 (Radeon HD 6320). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 3. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,MPEG-2 (Radeon HD 6320).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6320 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | UVD 3 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | UVD 3 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon HD 6320's 186W — a 85.1% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon HD 6320). Power connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 1mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6320 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-60% | 186W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 1mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+13013% | 0.8 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon HD 6320 launched at $30 and now averages $5. The Radeon HD 6320 costs 93.3% less ($70 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 29.4 (Radeon HD 6320) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 256.8% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2011).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon HD 6320 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $30-80% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75 | $5-93% |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+257% | 29.4 |
| Codename | TU117 | Cayman |
| Release | April 23 2019 | December 1 2011 |
| Ranking | #323 | #598 |
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 HD 6320
