GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile vs Radeon R9 Fury

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 Fury with GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

R9 Fury
2015
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 275 Watt
24.84
+34.5%

R9 Fury outperforms GTX 1650 Mobile by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking219300
Place by popularitynot in top-10068
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.15no data
Power efficiency6.1925.32
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameFijiTU117
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date10 July 2015 (9 years ago)15 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 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 cores35841024
Compute units56no data
Core clock speedno data1380 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1560 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate224.099.84
Floating-point processing power7.168 TFLOPS3.195 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs22464

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
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors​2x 8-pinno data
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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR6
High bandwidth memory (HBM)+no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s192.0 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x 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.

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
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 Fury 24.84
+34.5%
GTX 1650 Mobile 18.47

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 Fury 9570
+34.5%
GTX 1650 Mobile 7116

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.

R9 Fury 17543
+33.6%
GTX 1650 Mobile 13132

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.

R9 Fury 42039
+34.3%
GTX 1650 Mobile 31311

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 Fury 14580
+56.6%
GTX 1650 Mobile 9313

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.

R9 Fury 80439
+40.2%
GTX 1650 Mobile 57365

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 HD88
+51.7%
58
−51.7%
1440p103
+178%
37
−178%
4K47
+135%
20
−135%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.24no data
1440p5.33no data
4K11.68no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
−30%
52
+30%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
−1.9%
55
+1.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+0%
42
+0%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
81
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+0%
51
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
−2.5%
41
+2.5%
Far Cry 5 55−60
−15.8%
66
+15.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
−21.5%
79
+21.5%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
−14.5%
166
+14.5%
Hitman 3 50−55
+6.4%
47
−6.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
−42.6%
164
+42.6%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+3.7%
82
−3.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
−9.2%
71
+9.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
−39.3%
117
+39.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
−41.7%
146
+41.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
−48.1%
80
+48.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+75%
24
−75%
Battlefield 5 51
−37.3%
70
+37.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+8.5%
47
−8.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+25%
32
−25%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+7.5%
53
−7.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+20.4%
54
−20.4%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
−2.1%
148
+2.1%
Hitman 3 50−55
+19%
42
−19%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
−28.7%
148
+28.7%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+25%
68
−25%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+18.2%
55
−18.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+31.3%
64
−31.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+28.6%
40−45
−28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
−36.9%
141
+36.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 29
−3.4%
30
+3.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+425%
8
−425%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+50%
34
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+33.3%
30
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+42.5%
40
−42.5%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+134%
62
−134%
Hitman 3 50−55
+35.1%
37
−35.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+102%
57
−102%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+52.7%
55
−52.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
+27.8%
36
−27.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+506%
17
−506%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+25%
52
−25%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+9.3%
43
−9.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+11.8%
34
−11.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+18.2%
22
−18.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+50%
16−18
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+40%
20−22
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+6.7%
15
−6.7%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+16%
25
−16%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+43.4%
99
−43.4%
Hitman 3 30−33
+15.4%
26
−15.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+15.9%
44
−15.9%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+20.5%
39
−20.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+50%
35−40
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+21.7%
115
−21.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+27.3%
33
−27.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 38
+81%
21
−81%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+11.8%
17
−11.8%
Hitman 3 20−22
+42.9%
14
−42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+184%
45
−184%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+7.7%
26
−7.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36
+71.4%
21
−71.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 11
−9.1%
12
+9.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5
−20%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+16.7%
12
−16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+36%
24−27
−36%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+50%
20−22
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+29.4%
17
−29.4%

This is how R9 Fury and GTX 1650 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • R9 Fury is 52% faster in 1080p
  • R9 Fury is 178% faster in 1440p
  • R9 Fury is 135% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 Fury is 506% faster.
  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 Mobile is 48% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 Fury is ahead in 52 tests (72%)
  • GTX 1650 Mobile is ahead in 17 tests (24%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (4%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.84 18.47
Recency 10 July 2015 15 April 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 50 Watt

R9 Fury has a 34.5% higher aggregate performance score.

GTX 1650 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 450% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 Fury is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 Fury is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile 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 Fury
Radeon R9 Fury
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile

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.


3.7 174 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 3307 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile 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.