GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 M395X

Place in the ranking	377	264
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	39.45
Power efficiency	12.43	18.84
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Amethyst	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

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 cores	2048	896
Core clock speed	723 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	92.54	93.24
Floating-point processing power	2.961 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	128	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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160.0 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
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
DualGraphics	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
Switchable graphics	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	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. 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 M395X 13.46

GTX 1650 20.40
+51.6%

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 M395X 5194

GTX 1650 7873
+51.6%

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 M395X 7921

GTX 1650 9203
+16.2%

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	40−45 −67.5%	67 +67.5%
1440p	24−27 −54.2%	37 +54.2%
4K	14−16 −71.4%	24 +71.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.22
1440p	no data	4.03
4K	no data	6.21

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

21−24

−52.4%

30−35
+52.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 −71%	53 +71%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 −124%	47 +124%
Battlefield 5	40−45 −83.7%	79 +83.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 −92.6%	52 +92.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −52.4%	30−35 +52.4%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −106%	64 +106%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 −116%	80 +116%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 −160%	229 +160%
Hitman 3	24−27 −96%	49 +96%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 −317%	292 +317%
Metro Exodus	45−50 −124%	101 +124%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −108%	77 +108%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 −161%	115 +161%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 −203%	224 +203%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 −168%	83 +168%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 −66.7%	35 +66.7%
Battlefield 5	40−45 −67.4%	72 +67.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 −70.4%	46 +70.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −52.4%	30−35 +52.4%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −67.7%	52 +67.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 −51.4%	56 +51.4%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 −128%	201 +128%
Hitman 3	24−27 −88%	47 +88%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 −271%	260 +271%
Metro Exodus	45−50 −57.8%	71 +57.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −48.6%	55 +48.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 −68.2%	74 +68.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −39.4%	45−50 +39.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 −178%	206 +178%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +24%	25 −24%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	21−24 +61.5%	13 −61.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +238%	8 −238%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −52.4%	30−35 +52.4%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −25.8%	39 +25.8%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 +35.4%	65 −35.4%
Hitman 3	24−27 −64%	41 +64%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +16.7%	60 −16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 −40.9%	62 +40.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −27.3%	42 +27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +252%	21 −252%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35−40

−45.9%

54
+45.9%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −61.5%	42 +61.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 −71.4%	36 +71.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −38.5%	18 +38.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 −30%	13 +30%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 −64.3%	21−24 +64.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −71.4%	12−14 +71.4%
Far Cry 5	16−18 −50%	24 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 −79.4%	122 +79.4%
Hitman 3	16−18 −68.8%	27 +68.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −59.3%	43 +59.3%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −78.3%	41 +78.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 −95.7%	45 +95.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −71.4%	24−27 +71.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 −72.6%	145 +72.6%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

−59.1%

35
+59.1%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −53.8%	20 +53.8%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 −70%	17 +70%
Hitman 3	9−10 −44.4%	13 +44.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65−70 +58.5%	41 −58.5%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −108%	27 +108%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −117%	26 +117%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −62.5%	13 +62.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +20%	5 −20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −57.1%	10−12 +57.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −71.4%	12 +71.4%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −66.7%	30 +66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −117%	26 +117%
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 −60%	8 +60%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

−41.7%

17
+41.7%

This is how R9 M395X and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 68% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 54% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 71% 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 M395X is 252% faster.
in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 317% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R9 M395X is ahead in 8 tests (11%)
GTX 1650 is ahead in 64 tests (89%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	13.46	20.40
Recency	5 May 2015	23 April 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	75 Watt

GTX 1650 has a 51.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M395X in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M395X is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.