CPU
GPU
Radeon R9 285
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
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 GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is significantly newer (2020 vs 2014). The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon R9 285 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R9 285 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.6% 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 Ti with Max-Q Design.
| Insight | Radeon R9 285 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.6%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) | 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
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Radeon R9 285 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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 R9 285 and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
Radeon R9 285
The Radeon R9 285 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in September 2 2014. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 918 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 190W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,680 points. Launch price was $249.
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 2 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1035 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,574 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 285 scores 6,680 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design reaches 6,574 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 285 is built on GCN 3.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,792 (Radeon R9 285) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 3.29 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 285) vs 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design).
| Feature | Radeon R9 285 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,680+2% | 6,574 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1792+75% | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.29 TFLOPS+34% | 2.458 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112+75% | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 0.44 MB | 1 MB+127% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 285 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| 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. Memory bandwidth: 176 GB/s (Radeon R9 285) vs 192 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) — a 9.1% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 285) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) — the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R9 285 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 176 GB/s | 192 GB/s+9% |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.0 (Radeon R9 285) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.4 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Radeon R9 285 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6+5% |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 285) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Decoder: UVD 5.0 vs NVDEC (4th Gen). Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264 (Radeon R9 285) vs H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design).
| Feature | Radeon R9 285 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 3.0 | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | UVD 5.0 | NVDEC (4th Gen) |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264 | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 285 draws 190W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design's 50W — a 116.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Radeon R9 285) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: 2x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 65°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | Radeon R9 285 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 190W | 50W-74% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 350W-30% |
| Power Connector | 2x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 221mm | — |
| Height | 109mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 65°C-13% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 35.2 | 131.5+274% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2014).
| Feature | Radeon R9 285 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $249 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $40 | — |
| Codename | Tonga | TU117 |
| Release | September 2 2014 | April 2 2020 |
| Ranking | #365 | #371 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R9 285 and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
