GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 M375

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 M375

#555

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

3260%

#557

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

2956%

#558

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

2948%

#562

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

2680%

#563

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

2662%

#565

Radeon R9 M375

MSRP: $300|Avg: $300

100%

#567

Radeon HD 7520G + HD 7670M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

99%

#568

Radeon HD 8650G + HD 7600M Dual

MSRP: $250|Avg: $40

98%

#569

Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8600/8700M Dual

MSRP: $200|Avg: $100

98%

#570

Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8750M Dual

MSRP: $250|Avg: $40

98%

#571

Radeon R5 M315

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

98%

#572

Qualcomm Adreno 8cx Gen 3

MSRP: $599|Avg: $300

98%

#573

GeForce 9400 GT

MSRP: $59|Avg: $20

97%

#574

Radeon HD 8610G + HD 8600M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

96%

#575

GeForce 240M GT

MSRP: $100|Avg: $5

96%

#576

Radeon HD 8450G + HD 8670M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

96%

#577

GeForce 310

MSRP: $45|Avg: $5

95%

#578

Radeon R5 M320

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

95%

#579

Radeon HD 7640G + HD 8570M Dual

MSRP: $150|Avg: $40

95%

#580

GeForce 9600 GT

MSRP: $149|Avg: $20

95%

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 M375 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 688.5% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 M375.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 M375
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+688.5%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-688.5%)
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. Priced at $75 versus $300 for the Radeon R9 M375, it costs 75% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 3053.9% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 M375
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+3053.9%)	❌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.

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Radeon R9 M375 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 M375

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 M375

The Radeon R9 M375 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 5 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1015 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 998 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 M375's 998 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 688.5%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 M375 uses GCN 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 640 (Radeon R9 M375). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.299 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M375). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1015 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 M375
G3D Mark Score	7,869+688%	998
Architecture	Turing	GCN 1.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896+40%	640
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+130%	1.299 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+64%	1015 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 M375
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 64 GB/s (Radeon R9 M375) — 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 M375) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 M375
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 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 11_1 (Radeon R9 M375). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 M375
DirectX	12+9%	11_1
Vulkan	1.4+8%	1.3
OpenGL	4.6+7%	4.3
Max Displays	3	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 M375). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 6.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,MPEG-4,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Radeon R9 M375).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 M375
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 3.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 6.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,MPEG-4,MPEG-2,VC-1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 M375's 75W — a 0% difference. The Radeon R9 M375 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon R9 M375). Power connectors: None vs Mobile. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 M375
TDP	75W	75W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	Mobile
Length	229mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C-7%	75°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+689%	13.3

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon R9 M375 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 3.3 (Radeon R9 M375) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 3078.8% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).