GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 Nano
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Radeon R9 Nano
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
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 Nano 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 70.7% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 Nano.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+70.7%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-70.7%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $200 for the Radeon R9 Nano, it costs 63% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 355.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+355.3%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($200) |
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 Nano
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 Nano
The Radeon R9 Nano is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 27 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 175W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,609 points. Launch price was $649.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 Nano's 4,609 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 70.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 Nano uses GCN 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4,096 (Radeon R9 Nano). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8.192 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 Nano). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1000 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+71% | 4,609 |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 4096+357% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 8.192 TFLOPS+175% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+67% | 1000 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 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Nano has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 512 GB/s (Radeon R9 Nano) — a 300% advantage for the Radeon R9 Nano. Bus width: 128-bit vs 4096-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Radeon R9 Nano) — the Radeon R9 Nano has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 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 (Radeon R9 Nano). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 Nano). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 6.0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCE 3.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | UVD 6.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | — |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 Nano's 175W — a 80% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 550W (Radeon R9 Nano). Power connectors: None vs 1x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 152mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-57% | 175W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-45% | 550W |
| Power Connector | None | 1x 8-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 152mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+299% | 26.3 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon R9 Nano launched at $649 and now averages $200. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 62.5% less ($125 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 23.0 (Radeon R9 Nano) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 356.1% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-77% | $649 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-63% | $200 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+356% | 23.0 |
| Codename | TU117 | Fiji |
| Release | April 23 2019 | August 27 2015 |
| Ranking | #323 | #306 |
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 Nano
