Radeon R9 295X2 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon R9 295X2
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 295X2 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R9 295X2 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 11% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (8 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650.
| Insight | Radeon R9 295X2 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+11%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-11%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (307mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $200 for the Radeon R9 295X2, it costs 63% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 140.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 295X2 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+140.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($200) | ✅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 R9 295X2 and GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon R9 295X2
The Radeon R9 295X2 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 29 2014. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1018 MHz. It has 2816 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 500W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,734 points. Launch price was $1,499.
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 295X2 scores 8,734 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the Radeon R9 295X2 leads by 11%. The Radeon R9 295X2 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 295X2) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 5.733 TFLOPS ×2 (Radeon R9 295X2) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1018 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon R9 295X2 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 8,734+11% | 7,869 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2816 ×2+214% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.733 TFLOPS ×2+92% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1018 MHz | 1665 MHz+64% |
| ROPs | 64 ×2+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 176 ×2+214% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 704 KB | 896 KB+27% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 295X2 | 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 R9 295X2 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The Radeon R9 295X2 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 320 GB/s x2 (Radeon R9 295X2) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 2401.6% advantage for the Radeon R9 295X2. Bus width: 512-bit x2 vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Radeon R9 295X2 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+100% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 320 GB/s x2+150% | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 512-bit x2+300% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.0 (Radeon R9 295X2) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 6 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon R9 295X2 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.4+27% |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6+7% |
| Max Displays | 6+100% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 295X2) 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 295X2) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Radeon R9 295X2 | 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 295X2 draws 500W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 147.8% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 1000W (Radeon R9 295X2) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 2x 8-pin vs None. Card length: 307mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 65°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | Radeon R9 295X2 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 500W | 75W-85% |
| Recommended PSU | 1000W | 300W-70% |
| Power Connector | 2x 8-pin | None |
| Length | 307mm | 229mm |
| Height | 114mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 65°C-7% | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 17.5 | 104.9+499% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 295X2 launched at $1499 MSRP and currently averages $200, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 62.5% less ($125 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 43.7 (Radeon R9 295X2) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 140% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).
| Feature | Radeon R9 295X2 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1499 | $149-90% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $200 | $75-63% |
| Performance per Dollar | 43.7 | 104.9+140% |
| Codename | Vesuvius | TU117 |
| Release | April 29 2014 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #303 | #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 295X2 and GeForce GTX 1650
