Radeon R7 260 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon R7 260
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. 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
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2013). 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 R7 260 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 172.1% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (4 GB vs 1 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R7 260.
| Insight | Radeon R7 260 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-172.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+172.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) |
| 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. Priced at $75 versus $110 for the Radeon R7 260, it costs 32% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 299.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R7 260 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+299.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($110) | ✅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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R7 260 and GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon R7 260
The Radeon R7 260 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 17 2013. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1100 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 95W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,892 points. Launch price was $109.
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 R7 260 scores 2,892 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 172.1%. The Radeon R7 260 is built on GCN 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 768 (Radeon R7 260) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 1.536 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 260) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1100 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon R7 260 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,892 | 7,869+172% |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 896+17% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.536 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+94% |
| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 1665 MHz+51% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 48 | 56+17% |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 896 KB+367% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R7 260 | 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 R7 260 comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 96 GB/s (Radeon R7 260) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 33.3% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Radeon R7 260) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R7 260 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB | 4 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 128 GB/s+33% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_0) (Radeon R7 260) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon R7 260 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.4+17% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 2.0 (Radeon R7 260) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: UVD 4.2 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MVC (Radeon R7 260) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Radeon R7 260 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 2.0 | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | UVD 4.2 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MVC | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R7 260 draws 95W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 23.5% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 400W (Radeon R7 260) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs None. Card length: 170mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80 vs 70°C.
| Feature | Radeon R7 260 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 95W | 75W-21% |
| Recommended PSU | 400W | 300W-25% |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | None |
| Length | 170mm | 229mm |
| Height | 112mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80 | 70°C-13% |
| Perf/Watt | 30.4 | 104.9+245% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R7 260 launched at $109 MSRP and currently averages $110, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 31.8% less ($35 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 26.3 (Radeon R7 260) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 298.9% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).
| Feature | Radeon R7 260 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $109-27% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $110 | $75-32% |
| Performance per Dollar | 26.3 | 104.9+299% |
| Codename | Bonaire | TU117 |
| Release | December 17 2013 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #591 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R7 260 and GeForce GTX 1650
