GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R7 250

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.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Radeon R7 250

#1

GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

MSRP: $399|Avg: $280

614%

#2

GeForce RTX 5060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

590%

#3

Radeon RX 5600 XT

MSRP: $279|Avg: $180

583%

#4

Radeon RX 9060

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

582%

#5

GeForce RTX 5050

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

581%

#6

GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

MSRP: $249|Avg: $150

578%

#7

Arc A580

MSRP: $179|Avg: $179

570%

#8

Radeon RX 9060 XT

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

568%

#9

Radeon RX 9060 XT 8GB

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

563%

#10

Radeon RX 7600

MSRP: $269|Avg: $250

562%

#11

Radeon RX 6600

MSRP: $329|Avg: $180

555%

#12

GeForce RTX 4060

MSRP: $299|Avg: $299

554%

#13

Arc B570

MSRP: $219|Avg: $219

544%

#14

Arc B580

MSRP: $249|Avg: $249

543%

#91

Radeon R5 430 OEM

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $13

677%

#106

GeForce GT 640

MSRP: $99|Avg: $50

100%

#107

Radeon R7 250

MSRP: $89|Avg: $25

100%

#108

GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2

MSRP: $99|Avg: $99

100%

#110

Radeon HD 8550D

MSRP: $50|Avg: $50

96%

#111

Radeon 520

MSRP: $78|Avg: $78

95%

#112

Radeon HD 4810

MSRP: $70|Avg: $15

94%

#114

GeForce 605

MSRP: $30|Avg: $30

93%

#115

Radeon HD 8410G

MSRP: $40|Avg: $5

92%

#116

RADEON HD6530D

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

90%

#117

Moore Threads MTT S30

MSRP: $55|Avg: $55

89%

#118

Radeon 535

MSRP: $100|Avg: $100

89%

#121

GeForce GTS 450

MSRP: $129|Avg: $20

88%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2013). 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 R7 250 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 648.7% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R7 250.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+648.7%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-648.7%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020))
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	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $25), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 149.6% better value per dollar than the Radeon R7 250.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+149.6%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($25)

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.

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Radeon R7 250 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R7 250

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 R7 250

The Radeon R7 250 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 8 2013. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1050 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 65W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,051 points. Launch price was $89.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R7 250's 1,051 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 648.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R7 250 uses GCN 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 384 (Radeon R7 250). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.8064 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 250). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1050 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250
G3D Mark Score	7,869+649%	1,051
Architecture	Turing	GCN 1.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896+133%	384
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+270%	0.8064 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+59%	1050 MHz
ROPs	32+300%	8
TMUs	56+133%	24
L1 Cache	896 KB+833%	96 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250
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 R7 250 has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% 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 0.25 MB (Radeon R7 250) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	Unknown
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 11.1 (Radeon R7 250). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250
DirectX	12+8%	11.1
Vulkan	1.4+17%	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3+50%	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon R7 250). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264,MPEG-4 (Radeon R7 250).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 1.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 4.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264,MPEG-4

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R7 250's 65W — a 14.3% difference. The Radeon R7 250 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 300W (Radeon R7 250). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 229mm vs 168mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250
TDP	75W	65W-13%
Recommended PSU	300W	300W
Power Connector	None	None
Length	229mm	168mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	70°C-7%	75
Perf/Watt	104.9+548%	16.2

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon R7 250 launched at $89 and now averages $25. The Radeon R7 250 costs 66.7% less ($50 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 42.0 (Radeon R7 250) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 149.8% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).