GeForce GTX 1650 TU106 vs Radeon R9 Nano

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking247not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.35no data
Power efficiency8.95no data
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameFijiTU106
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date27 August 2015 (9 years ago)18 June 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 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 cores4096896
Compute units64no data
Core clock speedno data1410 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1590 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)175 Watt90 Watt
Texture fill rate256.089.04
Floating-point processing power8.192 TFLOPS2.849 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs25656
Tensor Coresno data112
Ray Tracing Coresno data14

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length152 mm229 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pin1x 6-pin
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 DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
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+-
ZeroCore+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.2
Mantle+-
CUDA-7.5

Pros & cons summary


Recency 27 August 2015 18 June 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 175 Watt 90 Watt

GTX 1650 TU106 has an age advantage of 4 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 94.4% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R9 Nano and GeForce GTX 1650 TU106. We've got no test results to judge.


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 Nano
Radeon R9 Nano
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 TU106
GeForce GTX 1650 TU106

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 90 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 273 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 TU106 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.