Radeon R5 M255 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon R5 M255
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 R5 M255 is positioned at rank #553 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 R5 M255
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 uses modern memory architecture. 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 R5 M255 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 1349.2% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R5 M255.
| Insight | Radeon R5 M255 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1349.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1349.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| 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
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $30), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 479.7% better value per dollar than the Radeon R5 M255.
| Insight | Radeon R5 M255 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+479.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️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 R5 M255 and GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon R5 M255
The Radeon R5 M255 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 28 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 900 MHz to 925 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 543 points. Launch price was $799.99.
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 R5 M255 scores 543 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 1349.2%. The Radeon R5 M255 is built on GCN 1.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 640 (Radeon R5 M255) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 1.184 TFLOPS (Radeon R5 M255) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 925 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon R5 M255 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 543 | 7,869+1349% |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 640 | 896+40% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.184 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+152% |
| Boost Clock | 925 MHz | 1665 MHz+80% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 40 | 56+40% |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 896 KB+460% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R5 M255 | 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 GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Radeon R5 M255) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R5 M255 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (Radeon R5 M255) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon R5 M255 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.4+17% |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6+7% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 3+50% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 3.0 (Radeon R5 M255) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: UVD 4.2 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-4,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Radeon R5 M255) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Radeon R5 M255 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 3.0 | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | UVD 4.2 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-4,MPEG-2,VC-1 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R5 M255 draws 75W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 0% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R5 M255) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: Mobile vs None. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | Radeon R5 M255 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | Mobile | None |
| Length | — | 229mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 70°C-13% |
| Perf/Watt | 7.2 | 104.9+1357% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R5 M255 launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The Radeon R5 M255 costs 60% less ($45 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 18.1 (Radeon R5 M255) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 479.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).
| Feature | Radeon R5 M255 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150 | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-60% | $75 |
| Performance per Dollar | 18.1 | 104.9+480% |
| Codename | Venus | TU117 |
| Release | January 28 2014 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #851 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R5 M255 and GeForce GTX 1650
