GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs Radeon R9 M395X

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M395X and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 M395X
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
13.46

GTX 1650 Max-Q outperforms R9 M395X by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking380334
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency12.5237.22
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameAmethystTU117
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 May 2015 (9 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)

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
Core clock speed723 MHz930 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1125 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate92.5472.00
Floating-point processing power2.961 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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Eyefinity+-

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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listed1.2
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 M395X 13.46
GTX 1650 Max-Q 16.01
+18.9%

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 Max-Q 6176
+18.9%

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
+1.8%
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 HD45−50
−24.4%
56
+24.4%
1440p24−27
−25%
30
+25%
4K14−16
−21.4%
17
+21.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−19%
24−27
+19%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
−58.1%
49
+58.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−23.8%
24−27
+23.8%
Battlefield 5 40−45
−46.5%
63
+46.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
−55.6%
42
+55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−19%
24−27
+19%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−54.8%
48
+54.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
−59.5%
59
+59.5%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
−122%
195
+122%
Hitman 3 24−27
−24%
30−35
+24%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
−14.3%
80−85
+14.3%
Metro Exodus 45−50
−57.8%
71
+57.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−45.9%
54
+45.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
−18.2%
50−55
+18.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
−9.5%
80−85
+9.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
−123%
69
+123%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−23.8%
24−27
+23.8%
Battlefield 5 40−45
−27.9%
55
+27.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
−48.1%
40
+48.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−19%
24−27
+19%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−22.6%
38
+22.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
−10.8%
41
+10.8%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
−103%
179
+103%
Hitman 3 24−27
−24%
30−35
+24%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
−14.3%
80−85
+14.3%
Metro Exodus 45−50
−28.9%
58
+28.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−21.6%
45
+21.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
−18.2%
50−55
+18.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
−15.2%
35−40
+15.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
−9.5%
80−85
+9.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+55%
20
−55%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−23.8%
24−27
+23.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+8%
25
−8%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−19%
24−27
+19%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+19.2%
26
−19.2%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+60%
55
−60%
Hitman 3 24−27
−24%
30−35
+24%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
−14.3%
80−85
+14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
−18.2%
50−55
+18.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+10%
30
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
−9.5%
80−85
+9.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−13.5%
42
+13.5%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
−26.9%
33
+26.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
−23.8%
26
+23.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−30.8%
17
+30.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
−30%
12−14
+30%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
−21.4%
16−18
+21.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−18.8%
19
+18.8%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−82.4%
124
+82.4%
Hitman 3 16−18
−18.8%
18−20
+18.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−22.2%
30−35
+22.2%
Metro Exodus 21−24
−39.1%
32
+39.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
−30.4%
30−33
+30.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−21.4%
16−18
+21.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−16.7%
95−100
+16.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−18.2%
24−27
+18.2%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+18.2%
11
−18.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
−30%
13
+30%
Hitman 3 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
−24.6%
80−85
+24.6%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−69.2%
22
+69.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−50%
18
+50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−28.6%
9
+28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−22.2%
21−24
+22.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−8.3%
13
+8.3%

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

  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 24% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 25% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 21% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M395X is 60% faster.
  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 Max-Q is 123% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 M395X is ahead in 6 tests (8%)
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is ahead in 65 tests (90%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.46 16.01
Recency 5 May 2015 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 30 Watt

GTX 1650 Max-Q has a 18.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 733.3% lower power consumption.

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


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 M395X
Radeon R9 M395X
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.


4.3 15 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M395X 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.