GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon TM
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Radeon TM
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 TM
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 41.4% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon TM.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon TM |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+41.4%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-41.4%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) (4nm) |
| 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 | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 1650 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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 TM
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 TM
The Radeon TM is manufactured by AMD. It was released in July 15 2024. It features the RDNA 3.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 400 MHz to 2900 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 16 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,564 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon TM's 5,564 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 41.4%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon TM uses RDNA 3.5, both on 12 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,024 (Radeon TM). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.939 TFLOPS (Radeon TM). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2900 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon TM |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+41% | 5,564 |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 3.5 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 1024+14% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 5.939 TFLOPS+99% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2900 MHz+74% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 64+14% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+250% | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon TM |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Radeon TM) — the Radeon TM has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon TM |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon TM's 15W — a 133.3% difference. The Radeon TM is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon TM). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon TM |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 15W-80% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 370.9+254% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon TM is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon TM |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75 | — |
| Codename | TU117 | Strix Point |
| Release | April 23 2019 | July 15 2024 |
| Ranking | #323 | #312 |
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 TM
