Radeon X1650 SE vs GeForce RTX 4060
Radeon X1650 SE
Popular choices:
GeForce RTX 4060
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 RTX 4060
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce RTX 4060 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 27432.4% higher G3D Mark score and 1500% more VRAM (8 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon X1650 SE.
| Insight | Radeon X1650 SE | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-27432.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+27432.4%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (7nm) | 🏆Elite Architecture (Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) / 5nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce RTX 4060 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $299 (vs $49), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 4412% better value per dollar than the Radeon X1650 SE.
| Insight | Radeon X1650 SE | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+4412%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($49) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($299) |
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 X1650 SE and GeForce RTX 4060
Radeon X1650 SE
The Radeon X1650 SE is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 17 2023. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 2581 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 71 points. Launch price was $549.
GeForce RTX 4060
The GeForce RTX 4060 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 18 2023. It features the Ada Lovelace architecture. The core clock ranges from 1830 MHz to 2460 MHz. It has 3072 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 115W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 24 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 19,548 points. Launch price was $299.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Radeon X1650 SE scores 71 versus the GeForce RTX 4060's 19,548 — the GeForce RTX 4060 leads by 27432.4%. The Radeon X1650 SE is built on RDNA 2.0 while the GeForce RTX 4060 uses Ada Lovelace, both on 7 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (Radeon X1650 SE) vs 3,072 (GeForce RTX 4060). Boost clocks: 2581 MHz vs 2460 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon X1650 SE | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 71 | 19,548+27432% |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Ada Lovelace |
| Process Node | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560 | 3072+20% |
| Boost Clock | 2581 MHz+5% | 2460 MHz |
| ROPs | 64+33% | 48 |
| TMUs | 160+67% | 96 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the GeForce RTX 4060 is support for DLSS 3 Frame Gen. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The Radeon X1650 SE lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.
| Feature | Radeon X1650 SE | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | DLSS 3.5 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | DLSS 3.0 (Native) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | Yes (DLSS 3.5) |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon X1650 SE comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce RTX 4060 has 8 GB. The GeForce RTX 4060 offers 1500% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Radeon X1650 SE | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 8 GB+1500% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 9.0c (Radeon X1650 SE) vs 12 Ultimate (GeForce RTX 4060). OpenGL: 2.1 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 4.
| Feature | Radeon X1650 SE | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 9.0c | 12 Ultimate+33% |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6+119% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 4+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Avivo (Radeon X1650 SE) vs NVENC 8th gen (GeForce RTX 4060). Decoder: Avivo vs NVDEC 5th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,WMV9 (Radeon X1650 SE) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,AV1 (GeForce RTX 4060).
| Feature | Radeon X1650 SE | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Avivo | NVENC 8th gen |
| Decoder | Avivo | NVDEC 5th gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,WMV9 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon X1650 SE draws 250W versus the GeForce RTX 4060's 115W — a 74% difference. The GeForce RTX 4060 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon X1650 SE) vs 550W (GeForce RTX 4060). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 8-pin. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 73°C.
| Feature | Radeon X1650 SE | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 250W | 115W-54% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-36% | 550W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 8-pin |
| Length | — | 240mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | 73°C-3% |
| Perf/Watt | 0.3 | 170.0+56567% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon X1650 SE launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GeForce RTX 4060 launched at $299 and now averages $299. The Radeon X1650 SE costs 83.6% less ($250 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 1.4 (Radeon X1650 SE) vs 65.4 (GeForce RTX 4060) — the GeForce RTX 4060 offers 4571.4% better value.
| Feature | Radeon X1650 SE | GeForce RTX 4060 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $299 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49-84% | $299 |
| Performance per Dollar | 1.4 | 65.4+4571% |
| Codename | Navi 22 | AD107 |
| Release | October 17 2023 | May 18 2023 |
| Ranking | #92 | #84 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon X1650 SE and GeForce RTX 4060
