
Radeon 8040S vs GeForce GTX 1650

Radeon 8040S
Popular choices:

GeForce GTX 1650
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. The Radeon 8040S is positioned at rank #216 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. 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 Radeon 8040S
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon 8040S is significantly newer (2025 vs 2019). The Radeon 8040S 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 8040S is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 24% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650.
| Insight | Radeon 8040S | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+24%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-24%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) (4nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (4 GB) | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $400 for the Radeon 8040S, it costs 81% less. While it maintains lower overall performance, this results in a 330.2% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon 8040S | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+330.2%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($400) | ✅More affordable ($75) |
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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon 8040S and GeForce GTX 1650

Radeon 8040S
The Radeon 8040S is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 6 2025. It features the RDNA 3.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1295 MHz to 2800 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 16 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 9,756 points.

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.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Radeon 8040S scores 9,756 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the Radeon 8040S leads by 24%. The Radeon 8040S is built on RDNA 3.5 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 4 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (Radeon 8040S) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 5.734 TFLOPS (Radeon 8040S) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 2800 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon 8040S | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 9,756+24% | 7,869 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Turing |
| Process Node | 4 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1024+14% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.734 TFLOPS+92% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 2800 MHz+68% | 1665 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64+14% | 56 |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB+700% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon 8040S | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: System vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 8 MB (Radeon 8040S) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Radeon 8040S has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon 8040S | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | Shared | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | System | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | System | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB+700% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.2 (Radeon 8040S) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon 8040S | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.2+2% | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCN 4.5 (Radeon 8040S) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: VCN 4.5 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Radeon 8040S) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Radeon 8040S | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCN 4.5 | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | VCN 4.5 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon 8040S draws 55W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 30.8% difference. The Radeon 8040S is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Radeon 8040S) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | Radeon 8040S | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 55W-27% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 300W-40% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 0mm | 229mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 70°C-18% |
| Perf/Watt | 177.4+69% | 104.9 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon 8040S launched at $400 MSRP and currently averages $400, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 81.3% less ($325 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 24.4 (Radeon 8040S) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 329.9% better value. The Radeon 8040S is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2019).
| Feature | Radeon 8040S | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $400 | $149-63% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $400 | $75-81% |
| Performance per Dollar | 24.4 | 104.9+330% |
| Codename | Strix Halo | TU117 |
| Release | January 6 2025 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #265 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.











