GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 255

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

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 R9 255 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 424.3% 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 R9 255.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 255
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+424.3%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-424.3%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019))
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 $30), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 109.7% better value per dollar than the Radeon R9 255.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 255
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+109.7%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($30)

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 R9 255 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 255

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 R9 255

The Radeon R9 255 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in September 2 2014. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 918 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 190W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,501 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 255's 1,501 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 424.3%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 255 uses GCN 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,792 (Radeon R9 255). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3.29 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 255).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 255
G3D Mark Score	7,869+424%	1,501
Architecture	Turing	GCN 3.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	1792+100%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	3.29 TFLOPS+10%
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	56	112+100%
L1 Cache	896 KB+100%	448 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 255
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 R9 255 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 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 255) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 255
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+100%	0.5 MB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 255's 190W — a 86.8% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 400W (Radeon R9 255). Power connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 255
TDP	75W-61%	190W
Recommended PSU	300W-25%	400W
Power Connector	None	1x 6-pin
Length	229mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	—
Temp (Load)	70°C	—
Perf/Watt	104.9+1228%	7.9

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon R9 255 launched at $139 and now averages $30. The Radeon R9 255 costs 60% less ($45 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 50.0 (Radeon R9 255) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 109.8% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).