GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs Radeon R7 265

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 with GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

R7 265
2014, $149
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
9.56

1650 Max-Q outperforms R7 265 by an impressive 59% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking514393
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.65no data
Power efficiency4.9639.52
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code namePitcairnTU117
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (12 years ago)23 April 2019 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores10241024
Core clock speedno data930 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHz1125 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate59.2072.00
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS2.304 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs6464
L1 Cache256 KB1 MB
L2 Cache512 KB1024 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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

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 speed1400 MHz1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s112.1 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan-1.2.140
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.

R7 265 9.56
GTX 1650 Max-Q 15.24
+59.4%

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.

R7 265 5220
GTX 1650 Max-Q 7779
+49%

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 HD35−4060
+71.4%
1440p18−2030
+66.7%
4K10−1218
+80%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.26no data
1440p8.28no data
4K14.90no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 85−90 85−90
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 30−35
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30 27−30
Resident Evil 4 Remake 30−35 30−35

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 64 64
Counter-Strike 2 85−90 85−90
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 30−35
Far Cry 5 38 38
Fortnite 138 138
Forza Horizon 4 74 74
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30 27−30
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85 85
Valorant 120−130 120−130

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 54 54
Counter-Strike 2 85−90 85−90
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 167 167
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 30−35
Dota 2 94 94
Far Cry 5 35 35
Fortnite 80 80
Forza Horizon 4 69 69
Grand Theft Auto V 56 56
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30 27−30
Metro Exodus 28 28
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 71 71
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 53 53
Valorant 120−130 120−130

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 49 49
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 30−35
Dota 2 88 88
Far Cry 5 33 33
Forza Horizon 4 55 55
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30 27−30
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 53 53
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30 30
Valorant 120−130 120−130

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 59 59

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−33 30−33
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120 110−120
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27 24−27
Metro Exodus 16 16
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
Valorant 140−150 140−150

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 36 36
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 14−16
Far Cry 5 30−35 30−35
Forza Horizon 4 35−40 35−40
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18 16−18
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24 21−24

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 36 36

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 12−14 12−14
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30 27−30
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10 9−10
Metro Exodus 10 10
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18 18
Valorant 75−80 75−80

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 19 19
Counter-Strike 2 12−14 12−14
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 6−7
Dota 2 55−60 55−60
Far Cry 5 16−18 16−18
Forza Horizon 4 27−30 27−30
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10 9−10
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 17 17

4K
Epic

Fortnite 11 11

This is how R7 265 and GTX 1650 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 71% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 67% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 80% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.56 15.24
Recency 13 February 2014 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 30 Watt

GTX 1650 Max-Q has a 59% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 57% more advanced lithography process, and 80% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 265 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

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.


3.2 388 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 732 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 265 or GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.