GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 M275
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Radeon R9 M275
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R9 M275
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 M275 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 605.7% higher G3D Mark score and 700% more VRAM (4 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 M275.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+605.7%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-605.7%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+700%) | ❌ 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. Priced at $75 versus $300 for the Radeon R9 M275, it costs 75% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 2723% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+2723%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($300) |
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 M275
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 M275
The Radeon R9 M275 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 28 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 900 MHz to 925 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,115 points. Launch price was $799.99.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 M275's 1,115 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 605.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 M275 uses GCN 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 640 (Radeon R9 M275). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.184 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M275). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 925 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+606% | 1,115 |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+40% | 640 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+152% | 1.184 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+80% | 925 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+40% | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+460% | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 M275 has 512 MB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 64 GB/s (Radeon R9 M275) — a 100% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.25 MB (Radeon R9 M275) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+700% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s+100% | 64 GB/s |
| 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 (FL11_1) (Radeon R9 M275). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.1. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 6.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (FL11_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.4+17% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+12% | 4.1 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 6+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs UVD3 (Radeon R9 M275). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCE. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,Flash (Radeon R9 M275).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | UVD3 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | VCE |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,Flash |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 M275's 75W — a 0% difference. The Radeon R9 M275 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon R9 M275). Power connectors: None vs Mobile. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| 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-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+604% | 14.9 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon R9 M275 launched at $300 and now averages $300. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 75% less ($225 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3.7 (Radeon R9 M275) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 2735.1% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M275 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-50% | $300 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-75% | $300 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+2735% | 3.7 |
| Codename | TU117 | Venus |
| Release | April 23 2019 | January 28 2014 |
| Ranking | #323 | #851 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 M275
