GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon RX 7400

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 RX 7400

#16

GeForce RTX 3070

MSRP: $499|Avg: $200

108%

#17

Radeon RX 6700

MSRP: $379|Avg: $300

108%

#18

Radeon RX 6600 XT

MSRP: $379|Avg: $170

106%

#19

Radeon RX590 GME

MSRP: $173|Avg: $115

105%

#20

Radeon RX 6650 XT

MSRP: $399|Avg: $230

105%

#21

GeForce RTX 5060 Ti

MSRP: $379|Avg: $379

103%

#22

GeForce RTX 3050 6GB

MSRP: $169|Avg: $179

103%

#23

GeForce RTX 3050 8GB

MSRP: $249|Avg: $209

102%

#24

Radeon RX 6600 LE

MSRP: $329|Avg: $160

102%

#25

GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8GB

MSRP: $379|Avg: $379

102%

#26

Radeon RX 7700 XT

MSRP: $449|Avg: $380

102%

#27

GeForce RTX 4060 Ti

MSRP: $399|Avg: $380

102%

#28

Radeon RX 6750 GRE 10GB

MSRP: $269|Avg: $318

101%

#29

Radeon RX 6700 XT

MSRP: $479|Avg: $230

101%

#30

GeForce RTX 3060

MSRP: $329|Avg: $289

100%

#31

Radeon RX 7400

MSRP: $199|Avg: $199

100%

#32

Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB

MSRP: $349|Avg: $349

100%

#33

Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB

MSRP: $349|Avg: $349

98%

#34

Radeon RX 5300

MSRP: $129|Avg: $50

96%

#35

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti

MSRP: $150|Avg: $77

95%

#36

Radeon RX 6400

MSRP: $159|Avg: $139

95%

#37

GeForce RTX 3070 Ti

MSRP: $599|Avg: $330

95%

#38

Arc A750

MSRP: $289|Avg: $229

94%

#39

Radeon RX 6800

MSRP: $579|Avg: $370

93%

#40

GeForce RTX 3060 8GB

MSRP: $329|Avg: $280

93%

#41

Radeon RX 6750 XT

MSRP: $549|Avg: $320

92%

#42

GeForce RTX 4070 Ti

MSRP: $799|Avg: $590

91%

#43

GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16GB

MSRP: $429|Avg: $429

91%

#44

GeForce RTX 5070

MSRP: $549|Avg: $550

90%

#45

Radeon RX 7600 XT

MSRP: $329|Avg: $330

89%

#46

GeForce RTX 2050

MSRP: $150|Avg: $150

88%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The Radeon RX 7400 is significantly newer (2025 vs 2019). The Radeon RX 7400 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Radeon RX 7400 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 48.1% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (8 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 7400
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-48.1%)	✅Leading raw performance (+48.1%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🏆Elite Architecture (RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) / 6nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	✨ FSR 3 / AFMF Support
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	🎮 High Capacity (8 GB)
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 $199 for the Radeon RX 7400, it costs 62% less. While it maintains lower overall performance, this results in a 79.2% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+79.2%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($75)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($199)

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 RX 7400 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 7400

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 7400

The Radeon RX 7400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 8 2025. It features the RDNA 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1452 MHz to 2300 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 43W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 28 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,654 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon RX 7400's 11,654 — the Radeon RX 7400 leads by 48.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX 7400 uses RDNA 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,792 (Radeon RX 7400). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 16.49 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 7400). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2300 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
G3D Mark Score	7,869	11,654+48%
Architecture	Turing	RDNA 3.0
Process Node	12 nm	6 nm
Shading Units	896	1792+100%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	16.49 TFLOPS+453%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz	2300 MHz+38%
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	112+100%
L1 Cache	896 KB+75%	512 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

A critical advantage for the Radeon RX 7400 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 7400
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 7400 has 8 GB. The Radeon RX 7400 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Radeon RX 7400) — the Radeon RX 7400 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	128 GB/s
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (Radeon RX 7400). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
DirectX	12	12.2+2%
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 4.0 (Radeon RX 7400). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Radeon RX 7400).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCN 4.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	VCN 4.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon RX 7400's 43W — a 54.2% difference. The Radeon RX 7400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 450W (Radeon RX 7400). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 229mm vs 241mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 7400
TDP	75W	43W-43%
Recommended PSU	300W-33%	450W
Power Connector	None	None
Length	229mm	241mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C-7%	75°C
Perf/Watt	104.9	271.0+158%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon RX 7400 launched at $199 and now averages $199. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 62.3% less ($124 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 58.6 (Radeon RX 7400) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 79% better value. The Radeon RX 7400 is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2019).