GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon RX 6400
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Radeon RX 6400
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 6400
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon RX 6400.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6400 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (6nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| 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 $139 for the Radeon RX 6400, it costs 46% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 88.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+88.7%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($139) |
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 6400
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 6400
The Radeon RX 6400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 19 2022. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1923 MHz to 2321 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 53W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,728 points. Launch price was $159.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 and the Radeon RX 6400 reaches 7,728 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX 6400 uses RDNA 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 768 (Radeon RX 6400). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3.565 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 6400). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2321 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6400 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+2% | 7,728 |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+17% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 3.565 TFLOPS+19% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2321 MHz+39% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56+17% | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+250% | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the Radeon RX 6400 is support for FSR 3 / AFMF. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The GeForce GTX 1650 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6400 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Native) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 / AFMF (Driver) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6400 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (Radeon RX 6400). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6400 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3+50% | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs None (Radeon RX 6400). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 3.0 (Limited). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264 (Decode),HEVC (Decode) (Radeon RX 6400).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6400 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | None |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | VCN 3.0 (Limited) |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264 (Decode),HEVC (Decode) |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon RX 6400's 53W — a 34.4% difference. The Radeon RX 6400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon RX 6400). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 229mm vs 172mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6400 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 53W-29% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | None |
| Length | 229mm | 172mm |
| Height | 111mm | 112mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-7% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 145.8+39% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon RX 6400 launched at $159 and now averages $139. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 46% less ($64 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 55.6 (Radeon RX 6400) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 88.7% better value. The Radeon RX 6400 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-6% | $159 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-46% | $139 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+89% | 55.6 |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 24 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | January 19 2022 |
| Ranking | #323 | #330 |
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 6400
