GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 M365X

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 R9 M365X

#435

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

1831%

#437

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

1660%

#438

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

1655%

#442

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

1505%

#443

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

1495%

#445

Radeon R9 M365X

MSRP: $250|Avg: $50

100%

#446

GeForce 7800 GS

MSRP: $30|Avg: $30

99%

#447

Radeon HD 8650G + 7670M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

99%

#448

Radeon R9 M265X

MSRP: $200|Avg: $30

98%

#449

Mobility Radeon HD 5165

MSRP: $49|Avg: $15

98%

#450

Radeon R5 M435

MSRP: $150|Avg: $30

97%

#451

Radeon E8860

MSRP: $300|Avg: $50

95%

#452

Radeon R7 M380

MSRP: $300|Avg: $300

94%

#453

Radeon HD 7650A

MSRP: $100|Avg: $49

94%

#454

GeForce 820A

MSRP: $100|Avg: $30

94%

#455

Radeon HD 8650G + 8600/8700M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $40

94%

#456

Radeon HD 7850M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

93%

#457

Radeon HD 7660G + HD 7730M Dual

MSRP: $160|Avg: $40

93%

#458

Radeon HD 8550G + HD 7600M Dual

MSRP: $100|Avg: $100

92%

#459

Radeon HD 8450G + 8600M Dual

MSRP: $100|Avg: $100

92%

#460

Radeon R9 M275X

MSRP: $300|Avg: $300

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 R9 M365X 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 431% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 M365X.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 M365X
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+431%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-431%)
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 $50), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 254% better value per dollar than the Radeon R9 M365X.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 M365X
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+254%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($50)

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 M365X Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 M365X

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 M365X

The Radeon R9 M365X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 5 2015. 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: 1,482 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 M365X's 1,482 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 431%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 M365X uses GCN 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 640 (Radeon R9 M365X). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.184 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M365X). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 925 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 M365X
G3D Mark Score	7,869+431%	1,482
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 M365X
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 R9 M365X) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 M365X
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

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 M365X's 75W — a 0% difference. The Radeon R9 M365X is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon R9 M365X). Power connectors: None vs Mobile.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 M365X
TDP	75W	75W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	Mobile
Length	229mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	—
Temp (Load)	70°C	—
Perf/Watt	104.9+430%	19.8

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon R9 M365X launched at $250 and now averages $50. The Radeon R9 M365X costs 33.3% less ($25 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 29.6 (Radeon R9 M365X) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 254.4% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).