GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon HD 7290

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated264
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data39.56
Power efficiencyno data18.92
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameLovelandTU117
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date6 June 2012 (12 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 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 cores80896
Core clock speed400 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speed400 MHz1665 MHz
Number of transistors450 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate3.20093.24
Floating-point processing power0.064 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs856

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.06.5
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.21.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

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



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.

HD 7290 111
GTX 1650 7872
+6992%

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.

HD 7290 206
GTX 1650 13645
+6524%

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.

HD 7290 534
GTX 1650 44694
+8270%

Pros & cons summary


Recency 6 June 2012 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 75 Watt

HD 7290 has 316.7% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 7290 and GeForce GTX 1650. We've got no test results to judge.


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.


AMD Radeon HD 7290
Radeon HD 7290
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

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.


3.3 21 vote

Rate Radeon HD 7290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 23071 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 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.