CPU
GPU
Radeon R9 380X
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650 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 with Max-Q Design
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1650 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 380X lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.9% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R9 380X.
| Insight | Radeon R9 380X | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / 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
The Radeon R9 380X offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $58 versus $100 for the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design, it costs 42% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 67.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 380X | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+67.5%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($58) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) |
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 380X and GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Radeon R9 380X
The Radeon R9 380X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 19 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 970 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,131 points. Launch price was $229.
GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
The GeForce GTX 1650 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: 6,309 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 380X scores 6,131 and the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design reaches 6,309 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 380X is built on GCN 3.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (Radeon R9 380X) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 3.973 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 380X) vs 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Boost clocks: 970 MHz vs 1200 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon R9 380X | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,131 | 6,309+3% |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+100% | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.973 TFLOPS+62% | 2.458 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 970 MHz | 1200 MHz+24% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128+100% | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 380X | GeForce GTX 1650 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 GDDR5. Memory bandwidth: 106 GB/s (Radeon R9 380X) vs 112 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) — a 5.7% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 380X) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) — the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R9 380X | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 106 GB/s | 112 GB/s+6% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_0) (Radeon R9 380X) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Radeon R9 380X | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 380X) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Decoder: UVD 6.0 vs NVDEC (4th Gen). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,VC-1 (Radeon R9 380X) vs H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design).
| Feature | Radeon R9 380X | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 3.0 | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | UVD 6.0 | NVDEC (4th Gen) |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,VC-1 | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 380X draws 250W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design's 50W — a 133.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Radeon R9 380X) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: 2x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 75°C.
| Feature | Radeon R9 380X | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 250W | 50W-80% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 350W-30% |
| Power Connector | 2x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 221mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 24.5 | 126.2+415% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 380X costs 42% less ($42 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 105.7 (Radeon R9 380X) vs 63.1 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) — the Radeon R9 380X offers 67.5% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2015).
| Feature | Radeon R9 380X | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $229 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $58-42% | $100 |
| Performance per Dollar | 105.7+68% | 63.1 |
| Codename | Antigua | TU117 |
| Release | November 19 2015 | April 2 2020 |
| Ranking | #394 | #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 380X and GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
