GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 Fury X

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 Fury X lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Radeon R9 Fury X is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 19.2% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Fury X
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-19.2%)	✅Leading raw performance (+19.2%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / 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 Fury X offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $80 (vs $75), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 11.8% better value per dollar than the GeForce GTX 1650.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Fury X
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+11.8%)
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($75)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($80)

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 Fury X Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

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

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 Fury X

The Radeon R9 Fury X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 24 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1050 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 275W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 9,382 points. Launch price was $649.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 Fury X's 9,382 — the Radeon R9 Fury X leads by 19.2%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 Fury X uses GCN 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4,096 (Radeon R9 Fury X). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8.602 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 Fury X). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1050 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Fury X
G3D Mark Score	7,869	9,382+19%
Architecture	Turing	GCN 3.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	4096+357%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	8.602 TFLOPS+188%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+59%	1050 MHz
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	256+357%
L1 Cache	0.88 MB	1 MB+14%
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Fury X
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 video memory. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 512 GB/s (Radeon R9 Fury X) — a 300% advantage for the Radeon R9 Fury X. Bus width: 128-bit vs 4096-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Radeon R9 Fury X) — the Radeon R9 Fury X has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Fury X
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	HBM
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	512 GB/s+300%
Bus Width	128-bit	4096-bit+3100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

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

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Fury X
DirectX	12	12.0
Vulkan	1.4+17%	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 Fury X). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 6.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Radeon R9 Fury X).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Fury X
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 3.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 6.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 Fury X's 275W — a 114.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 600W (Radeon R9 Fury X). Power connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 195mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 60°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 Fury X
TDP	75W-73%	275W
Recommended PSU	300W-50%	600W
Power Connector	None	2x 8-pin
Length	229mm	195mm
Height	111mm	115mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C	60°C-14%
Perf/Watt	104.9+208%	34.1

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon R9 Fury X launched at $649 and now averages $80. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 6.3% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 117.3 (Radeon R9 Fury X) — the Radeon R9 Fury X offers 11.8% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).