GeForce RTX 4060 vs Radeon X1650 GTO
GeForce RTX 4060
Popular choices:
Radeon X1650 GTO
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 GeForce RTX 4060
Performance Per Dollar Radeon X1650 GTO
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce RTX 4060 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 25964% 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 GTO.
| Insight | GeForce RTX 4060 | Radeon X1650 GTO |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+25964%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25964%) |
| Longevity | 🏆Elite Architecture (Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) / 5nm) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (7nm) |
| Ecosystem | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce RTX 4060 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $299 (vs $20), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 1643.4% better value per dollar than the Radeon X1650 GTO.
| Insight | GeForce RTX 4060 | Radeon X1650 GTO |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+1643.4%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($299) | ✅More affordable ($20) |
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 GeForce RTX 4060 and Radeon X1650 GTO
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.
Radeon X1650 GTO
The Radeon X1650 GTO is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 10 2022. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1925 MHz to 2324 MHz. It has 5120 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 335W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. It features 80 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 75 points. Launch price was $1,099.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce RTX 4060 scores 19,548 versus the Radeon X1650 GTO's 75 — the GeForce RTX 4060 leads by 25964%. The GeForce RTX 4060 is built on Ada Lovelace while the Radeon X1650 GTO uses RDNA 2.0, both on 5 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 3,072 (GeForce RTX 4060) vs 5,120 (Radeon X1650 GTO). Raw compute: 15.11 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 4060) vs 23.8 TFLOPS (Radeon X1650 GTO). Boost clocks: 2460 MHz vs 2324 MHz. Ray tracing: 24 RT cores (GeForce RTX 4060) vs 80 (Radeon X1650 GTO) with 96 Tensor cores.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4060 | Radeon X1650 GTO |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 19,548+25964% | 75 |
| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | RDNA 2.0 |
| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 3072 | 5120+67% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 15.11 TFLOPS | 23.8 TFLOPS+58% |
| Boost Clock | 2460 MHz+6% | 2324 MHz |
| ROPs | 48 | 128+167% |
| TMUs | 96 | 320+233% |
| L1 Cache | 3 MB+200% | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 24 MB+500% | 4 MB |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 24 | 80+233% |
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 GTO lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.The GeForce RTX 4060 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Radeon X1650 GTO relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4060 | Radeon X1650 GTO |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | DLSS 3.5 | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | DLSS 3.0 (Native) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | Yes (DLSS 3.5) | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce RTX 4060 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon X1650 GTO has 512 MB. The GeForce RTX 4060 offers 1500% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 24 MB (GeForce RTX 4060) vs 4 MB (Radeon X1650 GTO) — the GeForce RTX 4060 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4060 | Radeon X1650 GTO |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+1500% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 24 MB+500% | 4 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce RTX 4060 draws 115W versus the Radeon X1650 GTO's 335W — a 97.8% difference. The GeForce RTX 4060 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 550W (GeForce RTX 4060) vs 350W (Radeon X1650 GTO). Power connectors: 8-pin vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4060 | Radeon X1650 GTO |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 115W-66% | 335W |
| Recommended PSU | 550W | 350W-36% |
| Power Connector | 8-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 240mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 73°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 170.0+84900% | 0.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce RTX 4060 launched at $299 MSRP and currently averages $299, while the Radeon X1650 GTO launched at $150 and now averages $20. The Radeon X1650 GTO costs 93.3% less ($279 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 65.4 (GeForce RTX 4060) vs 3.8 (Radeon X1650 GTO) — the GeForce RTX 4060 offers 1621.1% better value. The GeForce RTX 4060 is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2022).
| Feature | GeForce RTX 4060 | Radeon X1650 GTO |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $299 | $150-50% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $299 | $20-93% |
| Performance per Dollar | 65.4+1621% | 3.8 |
| Codename | AD107 | Navi 21 |
| Release | May 18 2023 | May 10 2022 |
| Ranking | #84 | #25 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce RTX 4060 and Radeon X1650 GTO
