GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R5 M320
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M320 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 outperforms R5 M320 by a whopping 1623% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1072 | 281 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 37.79 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 18.74 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Jet | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (9 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 320 | 896 |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 780 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 855 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.10 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5472 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 20 | 56 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 128.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 4−5
−1625%
| 69
+1625%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−1950%
| 41
+1950%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−2400%
| 25
+2400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.16 |
| 1440p | no data | 3.63 |
| 4K | no data | 5.96 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−1600%
|
50−55
+1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−350%
|
35−40
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−1600%
|
50−55
+1600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 61 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−350%
|
35−40
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−10450%
|
211
+10450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1400%
|
90
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−900%
|
90
+900%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−785%
|
292
+785%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−1600%
|
50−55
+1600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 53 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−350%
|
35−40
+350%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−788%
|
230−240
+788%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−506%
|
97
+506%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−4150%
|
85
+4150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1283%
|
83
+1283%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 81 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−3400%
|
35
+3400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−856%
|
86
+856%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1320%
|
71
+1320%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−688%
|
260
+688%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 51 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−350%
|
35−40
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−475%
|
92
+475%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−983%
|
65
+983%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−633%
|
66
+633%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−720%
|
41
+720%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−112%
|
70
+112%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2950%
|
61
+2950%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−2217%
|
130−140
+2217%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2357%
|
170−180
+2357%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−5800%
|
177
+5800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40
+3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1433%
|
46
+1433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1450%
|
31
+1450%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2000%
|
42
+2000%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−120%
|
33
+120%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−1283%
|
83
+1283%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 59 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−850%
|
19
+850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1200%
|
26
+1200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−450%
|
11
+450%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how R5 M320 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 1625% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 1950% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 2400% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 10450% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 43 tests (70%)
- there's a draw in 18 tests (30%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.19 | 20.50 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 23 April 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
GTX 1650 has a 1622.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M320 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M320 is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
