GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs Radeon R9 280

#ad 
Buy
Radeon HD 7870 XT Radeon HD 7950 Radeon HD 7950 Boost Radeon HD 7950 Mac Edition Radeon HD 7950 Monica BIOS 1 Radeon HD 7970 Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition Radeon HD 8950 OEM Radeon HD 8970 OEM Radeon R9 280 Radeon R9 280X Radeon R9 280X2
VS
#ad 
Buy
GTX 1650 Mobile GTX 1650 Max-Q GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q MX450 25W MX450 30.5W 8Gbps MX450 30.5W 10Gbps

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280 with GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

R9 280
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
12.42

GTX 1650 Max-Q outperforms R9 280 by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

R9 280 R9 280
GTX 1650 Max-Q GTX 1650 Max-Q

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking378349
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.67no data
Power efficiency4.9436.91
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameTahitiTU117
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (11 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores17921024
Core clock speedno data930 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHz1125 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate104.572.00
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS2.304 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs11264

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount3 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 GB/s112.1 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.140
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.

R9 280 12.42
GTX 1650 Max-Q 13.93
+12.2%

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.

R9 280 5549
GTX 1650 Max-Q 6224
+12.2%

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.

R9 280 8020
+3.1%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 7779

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 HD50−55
−20%
60
+20%
1440p24−27
−25%
30
+25%
4K16−18
−12.5%
18
+12.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.58no data
1440p11.63no data
4K17.44no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 64
+0%
64
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Fortnite 138
+0%
138
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 74
+0%
74
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85
+0%
85
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 54
+0%
54
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 167
+0%
167
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 94
+0%
94
+0%
Far Cry 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Fortnite 80
+0%
80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 69
+0%
69
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 56
+0%
56
+0%
Metro Exodus 28
+0%
28
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 71
+0%
71
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 53
+0%
53
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 49
+0%
49
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 88
+0%
88
+0%
Far Cry 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55
+0%
55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 53
+0%
53
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+0%
30
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 59
+0%
59
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 16
+0%
16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 36
+0%
36
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 36
+0%
36
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 10
+0%
10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+0%
18
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 17
+0%
17
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 11
+0%
11
+0%

This is how R9 280 and GTX 1650 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 20% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 25% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 13% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 12.42 13.93
Recency 4 March 2014 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 30 Watt

GTX 1650 Max-Q has a 12.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 566.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 280 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is a notebook one.

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 R9 280
Radeon R9 280
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
HD 7990 Radeon HD 7990
GTX 1650 Max-Q GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
vs
MX570 A GeForce MX570 A
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
GTX 680 GeForce GTX 680
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
RX 590 590
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
RX 580 2048SP 580 2048SP
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
GTX 1050 Mobile 1050 Mobile
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
GeForce MX250 MX250
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
GTX 1650 1650
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
GTX 1660 1660
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
RX 640 640
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
RX 5700 XT 5700 XT
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
Quadro T1000 T1000
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
RX 5700 5700

Community ratings

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

3.6 422 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 672 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 280 or GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.