Radeon RX 5300 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon RX 5300
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 Radeon RX 5300
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.5% higher G3D Mark score and 33.3% more VRAM (4 GB vs 3 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon RX 5300.
| Insight | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.5%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+33.3%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon RX 5300 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $50 versus $75 for the GeForce GTX 1650, it costs 33% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 45% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+45%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($50) | ⚠️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 RX 5300 and GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon RX 5300
The Radeon RX 5300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 28 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1327 MHz to 1645 MHz. It has 1408 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,606 points.
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
The Radeon RX 5300 scores 7,606 and the GeForce GTX 1650 reaches 7,869 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon RX 5300 is built on RDNA 1.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 7 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,408 (Radeon RX 5300) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 4.632 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 5300) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1645 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,606 | 7,869+3% |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1408+57% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.632 TFLOPS+55% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1645 MHz | 1665 MHz+1% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 88+57% | 56 |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB+50% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon RX 5300 comes with 3 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 168 GB/s (Radeon RX 5300) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 31.3% advantage for the Radeon RX 5300. Bus width: 96-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (Radeon RX 5300) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Radeon RX 5300 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 3 GB | 4 GB+33% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 168 GB/s+31% | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 96-bit | 128-bit+33% |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB+50% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Radeon RX 5300) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCN 2.0 (Radeon RX 5300) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: VCN 2.0 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Radeon RX 5300) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCN 2.0 | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | VCN 2.0 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon RX 5300 draws 100W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 28.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon RX 5300) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 8-pin vs None. Card length: 180mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W | 75W-25% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | 8-pin | None |
| Length | 180mm | 229mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | 70°C-7% |
| Perf/Watt | 76.1 | 104.9+38% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon RX 5300 launched at $129 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The Radeon RX 5300 costs 33.3% less ($25 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 152.1 (Radeon RX 5300) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Radeon RX 5300 offers 45% better value. The Radeon RX 5300 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).
| Feature | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $129-13% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50-33% | $75 |
| Performance per Dollar | 152.1+45% | 104.9 |
| Codename | Navi 14 | TU117 |
| Release | May 28 2020 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #336 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon RX 5300 and GeForce GTX 1650
