Radeon 620 vs GeForce GTX 1650

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 with Radeon 620, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1650
2019
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
20.40
+779%

GTX 1650 outperforms 620 by a whopping 779% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking264845
Place by popularity3not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation39.47no data
Power efficiency18.843.21
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameTU117Polaris 24
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)13 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

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 cores896384
Core clock speed1485 MHz730 MHz
Boost clock speed1665 MHz1024 MHz
Number of transistors4,700 million1,550 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate93.2424.58
Floating-point processing power2.984 TFLOPS0.7864 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs5624

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed2000 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth128.0 GB/s14.4 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_0)
Shader Model6.56.3
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA7.5-

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 20.40
+779%
Radeon 620 2.32

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 7873
+781%
Radeon 620 894

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 9203
+432%
Radeon 620 1730

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 HD67
+857%
7−8
−857%
1440p37
+825%
4−5
−825%
4K24
+1100%
2−3
−1100%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.22no data
1440p4.03no data
4K6.21no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+540%
5−6
−540%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 53
+563%
8−9
−563%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 47
+840%
5−6
−840%
Battlefield 5 79
+2533%
3−4
−2533%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 52
+767%
6−7
−767%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+540%
5−6
−540%
Far Cry 5 64
+1500%
4−5
−1500%
Far Cry New Dawn 80
+1233%
6−7
−1233%
Forza Horizon 4 229
+1982%
10−12
−1982%
Hitman 3 49
+600%
7−8
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 292
+1437%
18−20
−1437%
Metro Exodus 101
+10000%
1−2
−10000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 77
+1440%
5−6
−1440%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 115
+945%
10−12
−945%
Watch Dogs: Legion 224
+505%
35−40
−505%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 83
+938%
8−9
−938%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35
+1067%
3−4
−1067%
Battlefield 5 72
+2300%
3−4
−2300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 46
+667%
6−7
−667%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+540%
5−6
−540%
Far Cry 5 52
+1200%
4−5
−1200%
Far Cry New Dawn 56
+833%
6−7
−833%
Forza Horizon 4 201
+1727%
10−12
−1727%
Hitman 3 47
+571%
7−8
−571%
Horizon Zero Dawn 260
+1268%
18−20
−1268%
Metro Exodus 71
+7000%
1−2
−7000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55
+1000%
5−6
−1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 74
+573%
10−12
−573%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+254%
12−14
−254%
Watch Dogs: Legion 206
+457%
35−40
−457%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 25
+213%
8−9
−213%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+540%
5−6
−540%
Far Cry 5 39
+875%
4−5
−875%
Forza Horizon 4 65
+491%
10−12
−491%
Hitman 3 41
+486%
7−8
−486%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60
+216%
18−20
−216%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 62
+464%
10−12
−464%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+223%
12−14
−223%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21
−76.2%
35−40
+76.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 54
+980%
5−6
−980%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 42
+950%
4−5
−950%
Far Cry New Dawn 36
+1100%
3−4
−1100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18
+800%
2−3
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Far Cry 5 24
+700%
3−4
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 122
+917%
12−14
−917%
Hitman 3 27
+286%
7−8
−286%
Horizon Zero Dawn 43
+617%
6−7
−617%
Metro Exodus 41
+925%
4−5
−925%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45
+800%
5−6
−800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 145
+1015%
12−14
−1015%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35
+600%
5−6
−600%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 20 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 17
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Hitman 3 13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 41
+925%
4−5
−925%
Metro Exodus 27
+800%
3−4
−800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+1200%
2−3
−1200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 13
+550%
2−3
−550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5
+400%
1−2
−400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+900%
3−4
−900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 26
+1200%
2−3
−1200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 17
+467%
3−4
−467%

This is how GTX 1650 and Radeon 620 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 857% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 825% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 1100% faster in 4K

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

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 10000% faster.
  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 620 is 76% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is ahead in 55 tests (98%)
  • Radeon 620 is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.40 2.32
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 50 Watt

GTX 1650 has a 779.3% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

Radeon 620, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 620 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop card while Radeon 620 is a notebook one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650
AMD Radeon 620
Radeon 620

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 23144 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 65 votes

Rate Radeon 620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.