GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon HD 6310
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6310 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 outperforms HD 6310 by a whopping 6414% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1415 | 333 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 5 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 22.31 |
| Power efficiency | 1.25 | 19.52 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Loveland | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 9 November 2010 (15 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 80 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 276 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 450 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 2.208 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.04416 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1024 KB |
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).
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 0−1 | 61 |
| 1440p | 0−1 | 38 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 24 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.44 |
| 1440p | no data | 3.92 |
| 4K | no data | 6.21 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 50−55
+5000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 40−45 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 50−55
+5000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 40−45 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 90
+2900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8 | 90
+1186%
|
| Valorant | 27−30 | 292
+943%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 50−55
+5000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14 | 230−240
+1677%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 40−45 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10 | 97
+978%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 83
+2667%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8 | 86
+1129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 71
+1320%
|
| Valorant | 27−30 | 260
+829%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 40−45 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10 | 92
+922%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 65
+2067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8 | 66
+843%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 41
+720%
|
| Valorant | 27−30 | 70
+150%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 35−40
+1850%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 130−140 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4 | 160−170
+5500%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 46 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 31
+3000%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 33
+136%
|
| Valorant | 5−6 | 83
+1560%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2 | 26
+2500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 11
+450%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 40−45 | 40−45 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 61 | 61 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Far Cry 5 | 69 | 69 |
| Fortnite | 211 | 211 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 53 | 53 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Far Cry 5 | 63 | 63 |
| Fortnite | 85 | 85 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 81 | 81 |
| Metro Exodus | 35 | 35 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 51 | 51 |
| Far Cry 5 | 59 | 59 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 61 | 61 |
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40 | 40 |
| Metro Exodus | 20 | 20 |
| Valorant | 177 | 177 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 39 | 39 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| Far Cry 5 | 40 | 40 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 42 | 42 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Metro Exodus | 12 | 12 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26 | 26 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21 | 21 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Dota 2 | 59 | 59 |
| Far Cry 5 | 19 | 19 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30 | 30 |
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 5500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 performs better in 24 tests (43%)
- there's a draw in 32 tests (57%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.29 | 18.89 |
| Recency | 9 November 2010 | 23 April 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 75 Watt |
HD 6310 has 76% lower power consumption.
GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 6414% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 70% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6310 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6310 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
