
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R6

GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon R6
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
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1185.8% higher G3D Mark score and 100+% more VRAM (4 GB vs 0 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R6.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R6 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1185.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1185.8%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) (14nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100+%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $49), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 740% better value per dollar than the Radeon R6.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R6 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+740%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75) | ✅More affordable ($49) |
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 R6

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 R6
The Radeon R6 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 13 2019. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1082 MHz to 1218 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 612 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R6's 612 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 1185.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R6 uses GCN 4.0, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 512 (Radeon R6). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.247 TFLOPS (Radeon R6). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1218 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R6 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+1186% | 612 |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+75% | 512 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+139% | 1.247 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+37% | 1218 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+75% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+600% | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R6 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 R6 has 0 MB. 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 0.5 MB (Radeon R6) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R6 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 0 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (12_0) (Radeon R6). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.4. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R6 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_0) |
| Vulkan | 1.4+17% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+5% | 4.4 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R6). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 4.2. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,DivX (Radeon R6).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R6 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCE 2.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | UVD 4.2 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,DivX |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R6's 50W — a 40% difference. The Radeon R6 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon R6). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 65°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R6 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 50W-33% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | 65°C-7% |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+760% | 12.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon R6 launched at $0 and now averages $49. The Radeon R6 costs 34.7% less ($26 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.5 (Radeon R6) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 739.2% better value.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R6 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75 | $49-35% |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+739% | 12.5 |
| Codename | TU117 | Polaris 23 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | May 13 2019 |
| Ranking | #323 | #757 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












