GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs Radeon R9 380X

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 380X with GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

R9 380X
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
16.04
+0.2%

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking332335
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.99no data
Power efficiency5.8837.20
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameAntiguaTU117
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date19 November 2015 (9 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 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 cores20481024
Compute units32no data
Core clock speedno data930 MHz
Boost clock speed970 MHz1125 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate124.272.00
Floating-point processing power3.973 TFLOPS2.304 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs12864

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
Length221 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Form factorfull height / full lengthno data
Supplementary power connectors​2 x 6-pinNone
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed970 MHz1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth182.4 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
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
ZeroCore+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.2.140
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. 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 380X 16.04
+0.2%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 16.01

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 380X 6187
+0.2%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 6175

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 380X 9510
+22.3%
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 HD55−60
−1.8%
56
+1.8%
1440p30−35
+0%
30
+0%
4K16−18
−6.3%
17
+6.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.16no data
1440p7.63no data
4K14.31no 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 380X and GTX 1650 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 2% faster in 1080p
  • A tie in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 6% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.04 16.01
Recency 19 November 2015 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 30 Watt

R9 380X has a 0.2% higher aggregate performance score.

GTX 1650 Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 533.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 380X and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q.

Be aware that Radeon R9 380X 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 380X
Radeon R9 380X
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.


3.8 181 vote

Rate Radeon R9 380X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 617 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.