GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs Radeon R9 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 with GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

R9 290
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
21.00
+30.9%

R9 290 outperforms GTX 1650 Max-Q by a substantial 31% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking262336
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.02no data
Power efficiency5.2436.65
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameHawaiiTU117
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date5 November 2013 (11 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 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 cores25601024
Core clock speed947 MHz930 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1125 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate151.572.00
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS2.304 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs16064

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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 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 amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 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, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.140
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. 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.

R9 290 21.00
+30.9%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 16.04

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 290 8093
+31%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 6180

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 290 11860
+52.5%
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 HD70−75
+22.8%
57
−22.8%
1440p35−40
+16.7%
30
−16.7%
4K18−20
+20%
15
−20%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.70no data
1440p11.40no data
4K22.17no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 49
+0%
49
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Battlefield 5 63
+0%
63
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 42
+0%
42
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 48
+0%
48
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 59
+0%
59
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 195
+0%
195
+0%
Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 71
+0%
71
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 54
+0%
54
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 69
+0%
69
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Battlefield 5 55
+0%
55
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40
+0%
40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 41
+0%
41
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 179
+0%
179
+0%
Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 58
+0%
58
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45
+0%
45
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20
+0%
20
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 25
+0%
25
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55
+0%
55
+0%
Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+0%
30
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 42
+0%
42
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 26
+0%
26
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 17
+0%
17
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 124
+0%
124
+0%
Hitman 3 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 32
+0%
32
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 13
+0%
13
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 22
+0%
22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+0%
18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8
+0%
8
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 9
+0%
9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 13
+0%
13
+0%

This is how R9 290 and GTX 1650 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • R9 290 is 23% faster in 1080p
  • R9 290 is 17% faster in 1440p
  • R9 290 is 20% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.00 16.04
Recency 5 November 2013 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 30 Watt

R9 290 has a 30.9% higher aggregate performance score.

GTX 1650 Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 816.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q 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.


AMD Radeon R9 290
Radeon R9 290
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

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.


4.2 558 votes

Rate Radeon R9 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 620 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q 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.