Radeon RX 5300 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Radeon RX 5300
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
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 GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon RX 5300 is significantly newer (2020 vs 2012). The Radeon RX 5300 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon RX 5300 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.1%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.1%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| 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 | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon RX 5300 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $50 versus $77 for the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti, it costs 35% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 55.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+55.7%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($50) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($77) |
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 Ti
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 Ti
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 9 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 928 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,525 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon RX 5300 scores 7,606 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti reaches 7,525 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon RX 5300 is built on RDNA 1.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti uses Kepler, both on 7 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,408 (Radeon RX 5300) vs 768 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Raw compute: 4.632 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 5300) vs 1.425 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti).
| Feature | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,606+1% | 7,525 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1408+83% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.632 TFLOPS+225% | 1.425 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 88+38% | 64 |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB+500% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Ti has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 168 GB/s (Radeon RX 5300) vs 192 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) — a 14.3% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti. Bus width: 96-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (Radeon RX 5300) vs 0.25 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) — the Radeon RX 5300 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 3 GB | 4 GB+33% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 168 GB/s | 192 GB/s+14% |
| Bus Width | 96-bit | 128-bit+33% |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB+500% | 0.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Radeon RX 5300) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCN 2.0 (Radeon RX 5300) vs NVENC 6 (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Decoder: VCN 2.0 vs NVDEC 4. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Radeon RX 5300) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti).
| Feature | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCN 2.0 | NVENC 6 (Volta) |
| Decoder | VCN 2.0 | NVDEC 4 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon RX 5300 draws 100W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti's 50W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon RX 5300) vs 0W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Power connectors: 8-pin vs None. Card length: 180mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 75.
| Feature | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W | 50W-50% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 0W-100% |
| Power Connector | 8-pin | None |
| Length | 180mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | 75 |
| Perf/Watt | 76.1 | 150.5+98% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon RX 5300 launched at $129 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti launched at $150 and now averages $77. The Radeon RX 5300 costs 35.1% less ($27 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 152.1 (Radeon RX 5300) vs 97.7 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) — the Radeon RX 5300 offers 55.7% better value. The Radeon RX 5300 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2012).
| Feature | Radeon RX 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $129-14% | $150 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50-35% | $77 |
| Performance per Dollar | 152.1+56% | 97.7 |
| Codename | Navi 14 | GK106 |
| Release | May 28 2020 | October 9 2012 |
| Ranking | #336 | #633 |
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 Ti
