GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon RX 5300
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Radeon RX 5300
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 RX 5300
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.5% higher G3D Mark score and 33.3% more VRAM (4 GB vs 3 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon RX 5300.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.5%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.5%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+33.3%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon RX 5300 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $50 versus $75 for the GeForce GTX 1650, it costs 33% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 45% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+45%) |
| 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 5300
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 RX 5300
The Radeon RX 5300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 28 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1327 MHz to 1645 MHz. It has 1408 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,606 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 and the Radeon RX 5300 reaches 7,606 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX 5300 uses RDNA 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,408 (Radeon RX 5300). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4.632 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 5300). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1645 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+3% | 7,606 |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 1408+57% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 4.632 TFLOPS+55% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+1% | 1645 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 88+57% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1.5 MB+50% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 2.1 |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| 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 RX 5300 has 3 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 168 GB/s (Radeon RX 5300) — a 31.3% advantage for the Radeon RX 5300. Bus width: 128-bit vs 96-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.5 MB (Radeon RX 5300) — the Radeon RX 5300 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+33% | 3 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 168 GB/s+31% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+33% | 96-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1.5 MB+50% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.1 (Radeon RX 5300). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCN 2.0 (Radeon RX 5300). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 2.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Radeon RX 5300).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCN 2.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | VCN 2.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon RX 5300's 100W — a 28.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon RX 5300). Power connectors: None vs 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 180mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-25% | 100W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | 8-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 180mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-7% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+38% | 76.1 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon RX 5300 launched at $129 and now averages $50. The Radeon RX 5300 costs 33.3% less ($25 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 152.1 (Radeon RX 5300) — the Radeon RX 5300 offers 45% better value. The Radeon RX 5300 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 5300 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $129-13% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75 | $50-33% |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9 | 152.1+45% |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 14 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | May 28 2020 |
| Ranking | #323 | #336 |
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 RX 5300
