Radeon R7 370 vs GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER

Place in the ranking	205	408
Place by popularity	63	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	6.46
Power efficiency	19.33	7.81
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	TU116	Trinidad
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	22 November 2019 (4 years ago)	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1280	1024
Core clock speed	1530 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1725 MHz	975 MHz
Number of transistors	6,600 million	2,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	110 Watt
Texture fill rate	138.0	62.40
Floating-point processing power	4.416 TFLOPS	1.997 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	80	64

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	229 mm	152 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	1 x 6-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	12000 MHz	975 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 GB/s	179.2 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	-	+
Number of Eyefinity displays	no data	6
HDMI	+	+
DisplayPort support	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration	-	+
CrossFire	-	+
FreeSync	-	+
TrueAudio	-	+
VCE	-	+
DDMA audio	no data	+
VR Ready	+	no data
Multi Monitor	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	+
Mantle	-	+
CUDA	7.5	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 1650 SUPER 26.34
+125%

R7 370 11.70

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 1650 SUPER 10160
+125%

R7 370 4511

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTX 1650 SUPER 64463
+124%

R7 370 28723

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 1650 SUPER 18218
+114%

R7 370 8519

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GTX 1650 SUPER 12225
+105%

R7 370 5961

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 1650 SUPER 68578
+72.3%

R7 370 39809

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 1650 SUPER 657142
+103%

R7 370 323114

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD	73 +55.3%	47 −55.3%
1440p	35 −45.7%	51 +45.7%
4K	22 +22.2%	18 −22.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

63
+250%

18−20

−250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60 +111%	27−30 −111%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	53 +194%	18−20 −194%
Battlefield 5	85−90 +132%	35−40 −132%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +125%	24−27 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	50 +178%	18−20 −178%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +122%	27−30 −122%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +113%	30−35 −113%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +93.6%	75−80 −93.6%
Hitman 3	62 +182%	21−24 −182%
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130 +93.5%	60−65 −93.5%
Metro Exodus	69 +81.6%	35−40 −81.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	84 +163%	30−35 −163%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	90−95 +137%	35−40 −137%
Watch Dogs: Legion	180 +165%	65−70 −165%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60 +111%	27−30 −111%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	26 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Battlefield 5	85−90 +132%	35−40 −132%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +125%	24−27 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	40 +122%	18−20 −122%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +122%	27−30 −122%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +113%	30−35 −113%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +93.6%	75−80 −93.6%
Hitman 3	59 +168%	21−24 −168%
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130 +93.5%	60−65 −93.5%
Metro Exodus	82 +116%	35−40 −116%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +113%	30−35 −113%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	101 +166%	35−40 −166%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 −58.9%	89 +58.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	180 +165%	65−70 −165%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60 +111%	27−30 −111%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	15 −20%	18−20 +20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +125%	24−27 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	34 +88.9%	18−20 −88.9%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +122%	27−30 −122%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +93.6%	75−80 −93.6%
Hitman 3	53 +141%	21−24 −141%
Horizon Zero Dawn	83 +33.9%	60−65 −33.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	83 +118%	35−40 −118%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50 +127%	22 −127%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21 −224%	65−70 +224%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

66
+106%

30−35

−106%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +117%	21−24 −117%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +122%	18−20 −122%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +125%	12−14 −125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	20 +233%	6−7 −233%
Far Cry 5	30−33 +131%	12−14 −131%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +170%	55−60 −170%
Hitman 3	34 +127%	14−16 −127%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60 +150%	24−27 −150%
Metro Exodus	55 +189%	18−20 −189%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	60 +233%	18−20 −233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +175%	12−14 −175%
Watch Dogs: Legion	164 +125%	70−75 −125%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

44
+132%

18−20

−132%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +136%	10−12 −136%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +163%	8−9 −163%
Hitman 3	34 +325%	8−9 −325%
Horizon Zero Dawn	130−140 +148%	50−55 −148%
Metro Exodus	32 +220%	10−11 −220%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	32 +220%	10−11 −220%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5 +0%	5−6 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +150%	6−7 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	3 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +150%	6−7 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +140%	14−16 −140%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30 +233%	9−10 −233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8 +100%	4−5 −100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21
+90.9%

10−12

−90.9%

This is how GTX 1650 SUPER and R7 370 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 SUPER is 55% faster in 1080p
R7 370 is 46% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 SUPER is 22% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Hitman 3, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 SUPER is 325% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R7 370 is 224% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead in 68 tests (94%)
R7 370 is ahead in 3 tests (4%)
there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	26.34	11.70
Recency	22 November 2019	18 June 2015
Chip lithography	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	110 Watt

GTX 1650 SUPER has a 125.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 10% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 370 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.