GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R7 M260X

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 M260X

#400

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

1489%

#402

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

1350%

#403

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

1347%

#407

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

1224%

#408

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

1216%

#410

Radeon R7 M260X

MSRP: $139|Avg: $35

100%

#411

Radeon HD 8570D + HD 6570 Dual

MSRP: $120|Avg: $25

99%

#412

Radeon R7 A365

MSRP: $109|Avg: $55

98%

#413

Intel UHD Graphics 615

MSRP: $100|Avg: $50

98%

#414

Radeon 3015e

MSRP: $49|Avg: $49

98%

#415

Radeon HD 7620G

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

98%

#416

Radeon R9 M390X

MSRP: $550|Avg: $120

97%

#417

Arc 8-Core iGPU

MSRP: $503|Avg: $400

95%

#418

Mobility Radeon HD 4670

MSRP: $67|Avg: $20

95%

#419

Radeon HD 8570D + HD 8570 Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $15

95%

#420

Radeon R9 M385

MSRP: $300|Avg: $60

94%

#421

Radeon R5 235

MSRP: $49|Avg: $49

94%

#422

Radeon R9 M375X

MSRP: $250|Avg: $50

94%

#423

Radeon HD 6620G

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

94%

#424

Radeon R5 310

MSRP: $49|Avg: $15

93%

#425

Radeon HD 7690M XT

MSRP: $150|Avg: $40

92%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GTX 1650 uses modern memory architecture. 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 M260X 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 676.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R7 M260X.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 M260X
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+676.8%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-676.8%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
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 $35), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 262.5% better value per dollar than the Radeon R7 M260X.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 M260X
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+262.5%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($35)

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 M260X Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R7 M260X

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 M260X

The Radeon R7 M260X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 6 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 620 MHz to 715 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,013 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R7 M260X's 1,013 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 676.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R7 M260X uses GCN 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 384 (Radeon R7 M260X). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5491 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 M260X). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 715 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 M260X
G3D Mark Score	7,869+677%	1,013
Architecture	Turing	GCN 1.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896+133%	384
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+443%	0.5491 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+133%	715 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 M260X
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)

Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.25 MB (Radeon R7 M260X) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 M260X
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 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 12 (11_1) (Radeon R7 M260X). Vulkan: 1.4 vs N/A. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 M260X
DirectX	12	12 (11_1)
Vulkan	1.4	N/A
OpenGL	4.6+7%	4.3
Max Displays	3+50%	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon R7 M260X). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 3.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MVC (Radeon R7 M260X).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 M260X
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 1.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 3.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MVC

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R7 M260X's 75W — a 0% difference. The Radeon R7 M260X is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon R7 M260X). Power connectors: None vs Mobile. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 M260X
TDP	75W	75W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	Mobile
Length	229mm	0mm
Height	111mm	0mm
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C-18%	85
Perf/Watt	104.9+677%	13.5

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon R7 M260X launched at $139 and now averages $35. The Radeon R7 M260X costs 53.3% less ($40 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 28.9 (Radeon R7 M260X) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 263% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).