Radeon HD 3000 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon HD 3000
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 HD 3000 is positioned at rank #316 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 HD 3000
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2011). The GeForce GTX 1650 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon HD 3000 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 8096.9% 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 HD 3000.
| Insight | Radeon HD 3000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-8096.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+8096.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)) | 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 $10), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 992.9% better value per dollar than the Radeon HD 3000.
| Insight | Radeon HD 3000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+992.9%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($10) | ⚠️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 HD 3000 and GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon HD 3000
The Radeon HD 3000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 1 2011. It features the TeraScale 3 architecture. The core clock speed is 750 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 186W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 96 points. Launch price was $180.
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 HD 3000 scores 96 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 8096.9%. The Radeon HD 3000 is built on TeraScale 3 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 40 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (Radeon HD 3000) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 1.92 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 3000) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Radeon HD 3000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 96 | 7,869+8097% |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 | Turing |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280+43% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.92 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+55% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80+43% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 896 KB+180% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon HD 3000 | 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 HD 3000 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: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (Radeon HD 3000) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon HD 3000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 4 GB+700% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.0 (Radeon HD 3000) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon HD 3000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.0 | 12+20% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 3+50% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: UVD (Radeon HD 3000) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: UVD vs NVDEC 4th gen.
| Feature | Radeon HD 3000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | UVD | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | UVD | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | — | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon HD 3000 draws 186W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 85.1% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon HD 3000) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs None. Card length: 1mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | Radeon HD 3000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 186W | 75W-60% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | None |
| Length | 1mm | 229mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.5 | 104.9+20880% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon HD 3000 launched at $50 MSRP and currently averages $10, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The Radeon HD 3000 costs 86.7% less ($65 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 9.6 (Radeon HD 3000) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 992.7% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2011).
| Feature | Radeon HD 3000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $50-66% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10-87% | $75 |
| Performance per Dollar | 9.6 | 104.9+993% |
| Codename | Cayman | TU117 |
| Release | December 1 2011 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #598 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon HD 3000 and GeForce GTX 1650
