Radeon R9 290X / 390X vs GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon R9 290X / 390X
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 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 R9 290X / 390X lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R9 290X / 390X is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 6.5% 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.
| Insight | Radeon R9 290X / 390X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+6.5%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-6.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) | 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 | Standard Size (275mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R9 290X / 390X offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $60 versus $75 for the GeForce GTX 1650, it costs 20% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 33.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 290X / 390X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+33.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($60) | ⚠️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 R9 290X / 390X and GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon R9 290X / 390X
The Radeon R9 290X / 390X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 18 2015. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1050 MHz. It has 2816 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 275W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,380 points. Launch price was $429.
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 R9 290X / 390X scores 8,380 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the Radeon R9 290X / 390X leads by 6.5%. The Radeon R9 290X / 390X is built on GCN 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,816 (Radeon R9 290X / 390X) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 5.914 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 290X / 390X) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1050 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon R9 290X / 390X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 8,380+6% | 7,869 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2816+214% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.914 TFLOPS+98% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1050 MHz | 1665 MHz+59% |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 176+214% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 704 KB | 896 KB+27% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 290X / 390X | 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. Memory bandwidth: 320 GB/s (Radeon R9 290X / 390X) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 150% advantage for the Radeon R9 290X / 390X. Bus width: 512-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Radeon R9 290X / 390X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 320 GB/s+150% | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 512-bit+300% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.0 (Radeon R9 290X / 390X) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 6 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon R9 290X / 390X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.4+27% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 6+100% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 290X / 390X) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: UVD 4.2 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (Radeon R9 290X / 390X) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Radeon R9 290X / 390X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 2.0 | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | UVD 4.2 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 290X / 390X draws 275W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 114.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 750W (Radeon R9 290X / 390X) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 6-pin + 8-pin vs None. Card length: 275mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 95°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | Radeon R9 290X / 390X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 275W | 75W-73% |
| Recommended PSU | 750W | 300W-60% |
| Power Connector | 6-pin + 8-pin | None |
| Length | 275mm | 229mm |
| Height | 109mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 95°C | 70°C-26% |
| Perf/Watt | 30.5 | 104.9+244% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 290X / 390X launched at $549 MSRP and currently averages $60, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The Radeon R9 290X / 390X costs 20% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 139.7 (Radeon R9 290X / 390X) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Radeon R9 290X / 390X offers 33.2% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | Radeon R9 290X / 390X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $549 | $149-73% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $60-20% | $75 |
| Performance per Dollar | 139.7+33% | 104.9 |
| Codename | Grenada | TU117 |
| Release | June 18 2015 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #287 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R9 290X / 390X and GeForce GTX 1650
