GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon RX 6900 XT
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Radeon RX 6900 XT
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 6900 XT
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon RX 6900 XT is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 239.7% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (16 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-239.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+239.7%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🔮Strong Longevity (RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) / 7nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (16 GB) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $385 for the Radeon RX 6900 XT, it costs 81% less. While it maintains significantly lower raw performance, this results in a 51.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+51.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($385) |
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 6900 XT
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 6900 XT
The Radeon RX 6900 XT is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 28 2020. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1825 MHz to 2250 MHz. It has 5120 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. It features 80 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 26,729 points. Launch price was $999.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon RX 6900 XT's 26,729 — the Radeon RX 6900 XT leads by 239.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX 6900 XT uses RDNA 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5,120 (Radeon RX 6900 XT). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 23.04 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 6900 XT). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2250 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 26,729+240% |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 5120+471% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 23.04 TFLOPS+672% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2250 MHz+35% |
| ROPs | 32 | 128+300% |
| TMUs | 56 | 320+471% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 1 MB+14% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the Radeon RX 6900 XT 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 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon RX 6900 XT has 16 GB. The Radeon RX 6900 XT offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 512 GB/s (Radeon RX 6900 XT) — a 300% advantage for the Radeon RX 6900 XT. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Radeon RX 6900 XT) — the Radeon RX 6900 XT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 512 GB/s+300% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 Ultimate (Radeon RX 6900 XT). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCN 3.0 (Radeon RX 6900 XT). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 3.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,AV1,VP9 (Radeon RX 6900 XT).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCN 3.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | VCN 3.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,AV1,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon RX 6900 XT's 300W — a 120% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 850W (Radeon RX 6900 XT). Power connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2.5 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-75% | 300W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-65% | 850W |
| Power Connector | None | 2x 8-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 120mm |
| Slots | 2-20% | 2.5 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+18% | 89.1 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon RX 6900 XT launched at $999 and now averages $385. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 80.5% less ($310 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 69.4 (Radeon RX 6900 XT) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 51.2% better value. The Radeon RX 6900 XT is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-85% | $999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-81% | $385 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+51% | 69.4 |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 21 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | October 28 2020 |
| Ranking | #323 | #35 |
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 6900 XT
