GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 285

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 285 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 17.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 285.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 285
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+17.8%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-17.8%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019))
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	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The Radeon R9 285 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $40 versus $75 for the GeForce GTX 1650, it costs 47% less. While it maintains lower overall performance, this results in a 59.2% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 285
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+59.2%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($40)

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 285 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 285

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 285

The Radeon R9 285 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: 6,680 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 285's 6,680 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 17.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 285 uses GCN 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,792 (Radeon R9 285). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3.29 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 285).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 285
G3D Mark Score	7,869+18%	6,680
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 285
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. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 176 GB/s (Radeon R9 285) — a 37.5% advantage for the Radeon R9 285. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 285) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 285
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	176 GB/s+38%
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.0 (Radeon R9 285). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.4. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 285
DirectX	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 3.0 (Radeon R9 285). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 5.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264 (Radeon R9 285).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 285
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 3.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 5.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 285's 190W — a 86.8% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Radeon R9 285). Power connectors: None vs 2x 6-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 221mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 65°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 285
TDP	75W-61%	190W
Recommended PSU	300W-40%	500W
Power Connector	None	2x 6-pin
Length	229mm	221mm
Height	111mm	109mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C	65°C-7%
Perf/Watt	104.9+198%	35.2

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon R9 285 launched at $249 and now averages $40. The Radeon R9 285 costs 46.7% less ($35 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 167.0 (Radeon R9 285) — the Radeon R9 285 offers 59.2% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).