RADEON 9600SE vs GeForce GTX 1650
RADEON 9600SE
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 9600SE is positioned at rank #723 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 9600SE
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RADEON 9600SE is significantly newer (2025 vs 2019). The RADEON 9600SE 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 GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 29044.4% higher G3D Mark score and 700% more VRAM (4 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the RADEON 9600SE.
| Insight | RADEON 9600SE | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-29044.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+29044.4%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) (4nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+700%) |
| 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. Although it costs $75 (vs $65), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 25158.5% better value per dollar than the RADEON 9600SE.
| Insight | RADEON 9600SE | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+25158.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($65) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of RADEON 9600SE and GeForce GTX 1650
RADEON 9600SE
The RADEON 9600SE 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 2900 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 40 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 27 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 9600SE scores 27 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 29044.4%. The RADEON 9600SE is built on RDNA 3.5 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 4 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (RADEON 9600SE) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 14.85 TFLOPS (RADEON 9600SE) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 2900 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | RADEON 9600SE | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 27 | 7,869+29044% |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | Turing |
| Process Node | 4 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560+186% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 14.85 TFLOPS+398% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz+74% | 1665 MHz |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 160+186% | 56 |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB+700% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RADEON 9600SE | 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)
The RADEON 9600SE comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 8 MB (RADEON 9600SE) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the RADEON 9600SE has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | RADEON 9600SE | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 4 GB+700% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB+700% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 9.0 (RADEON 9600SE) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: N/A vs 1.4. OpenGL: 2.0 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.
| Feature | RADEON 9600SE | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 9.0 | 12+33% |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.0 | 4.6+130% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 3+50% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (RADEON 9600SE) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: None vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (RADEON 9600SE) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | RADEON 9600SE | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | None | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The RADEON 9600SE draws 55W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 30.8% difference. The RADEON 9600SE is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RADEON 9600SE) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: Legacy vs None. Card length: 168mm vs 229mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 60 vs 70°C.
| Feature | RADEON 9600SE | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 55W-27% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | Legacy | None |
| Length | 168mm | 229mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 60-14% | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.5 | 104.9+20880% |
Value Analysis
The RADEON 9600SE launched at $65 MSRP and currently averages $65, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The RADEON 9600SE costs 13.3% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.4 (RADEON 9600SE) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 26125% better value. The RADEON 9600SE is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2019).
| Feature | RADEON 9600SE | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $65-56% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $65-13% | $75 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.4 | 104.9+26125% |
| Codename | Strix Halo | TU117 |
| Release | January 6 2025 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #98 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on RADEON 9600SE and GeForce GTX 1650
