GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R7 360
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 360 and GeForce GTX 1650, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1650 outperforms R7 360 by a whopping 152% 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 | 595 | 335 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 5 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.87 | 22.05 |
| Power efficiency | 5.81 | 19.52 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Tobago | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 18 June 2015 (11 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1650 has 470% better value for money than R7 360.
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 | 768 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 50.40 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.613 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 165 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | None |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
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 | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| 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 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.
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 | 24−27 | 61
+154%
|
| 1440p | 14−16 | 38
+171%
|
| 4K | 9−10
−62.5%
| 24 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.54 | 2.44
+46.2%
|
| 1440p | 7.79 | 3.92
+49.6%
|
| 4K | 12.11 | 6.21
+48.7%
|
- GTX 1650 has 46% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1650 has 50% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1650 has 49% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 40−45 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Battlefield 5 | 61 | 61 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Far Cry 5 | 69 | 69 |
| Fortnite | 211 | 211 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90 | 90 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90 | 90 |
| Valorant | 292 | 292 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Battlefield 5 | 53 | 53 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240 | 230−240 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Dota 2 | 97 | 97 |
| Far Cry 5 | 63 | 63 |
| Far Cry 6 | 46 | 46 |
| Fortnite | 85 | 85 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 83 | 83 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 81 | 81 |
| Metro Exodus | 35 | 35 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 86 | 86 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71 | 71 |
| Valorant | 260 | 260 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 51 | 51 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Dota 2 | 92 | 92 |
| Far Cry 5 | 59 | 59 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65 | 65 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 66 | 66 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41 | 41 |
| Valorant | 70 | 70 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 61 | 61 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Far Cry 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40 | 40 |
| Metro Exodus | 20 | 20 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 177 | 177 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 39 | 39 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| Far Cry 5 | 40 | 40 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46 | 46 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31 | 31 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 42 | 42 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Far Cry 6 | 10−11 | 10−11 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33 | 33 |
| Metro Exodus | 12 | 12 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26 | 26 |
| Valorant | 83 | 83 |
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 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26 | 26 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 11 | 11 |
This is how R7 360 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 154% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 171% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 167% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.46 | 18.80 |
| Recency | 18 June 2015 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 1650 has a 152% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 57% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 360 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
