GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile vs Radeon R9 FURY X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
255 OEM 260 OEM 270 270 1024SP 270X 280 280X 280X2 285 290 290X 290X2 295X2 360 OEM 370 370 1024SP 370X 380 380 OEM 380X 390 390 X2 390X 390X2 A375 Fury FURY X FURY X2 Nano
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GTX 1650 Mobile GTX 1650 Max-Q GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q MX450 25W MX450 30.5W 8Gbps MX450 30.5W 10Gbps T400 Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 FURY X with GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

R9 FURY X
2015, $649
4 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 275 Watt
22.49
+31.7%

R9 FURY X outperforms 1650 Mobile by a substantial 32% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R9 FURY X R9 FURY X
GTX 1650 Mobile GTX 1650 Mobile

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking285359
Place by popularitynot in top-10050
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.87no data
Power efficiency6.3326.43
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameFijiTU117
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date24 June 2015 (11 years ago)15 April 2020 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$649 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 cores40961024
Compute units64no data
Core clock speedno data1380 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz1560 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate268.899.84
Floating-point processing power8.602 TFLOPS3.195 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs25664
L1 Cache1 MB1 MB
L2 Cache2 MB1024 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
Length195 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinno data
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 speed1050 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s192.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x DisplayPort 1.2No outputs
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+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
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 Model6.56.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.2.140
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.

R9 FURY X 22.49
+31.7%
GTX 1650 Mobile 17.08

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 FURY X 9368
+31.6%
Samples: 208
GTX 1650 Mobile 7116

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 FURY X 16710
+79.4%
GTX 1650 Mobile 9313

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 HD75−80
+29.3%
58
−29.3%
1440p45−50
+21.6%
37
−21.6%
4K30−35
+30.4%
23
−30.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p8.65no data
1440p14.42no data
4K21.63no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 131
+0%
131
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 52
+0%
52
+0%
Palworld 51
+0%
51
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 46
+0%
46
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 60
+0%
60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 113
+0%
113
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 41
+0%
41
+0%
Far Cry 5 60
+0%
60
+0%
Fortnite 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 82
+0%
82
+0%
Palworld 44
+0%
44
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 164
+0%
164
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 60
+0%
60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 67
+0%
67
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130
+0%
130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 32
+0%
32
+0%
Dota 2 96
+0%
96
+0%
Far Cry 5 54
+0%
54
+0%
Fortnite 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80
+0%
80
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 59
+0%
59
+0%
Metro Exodus 33
+0%
33
+0%
Palworld 34
+0%
34
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
+0%
62
+0%
Valorant 148
+0%
148
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30
+0%
30
+0%
Dota 2 89
+0%
89
+0%
Far Cry 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 62
+0%
62
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 71
+0%
71
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36
+0%
36
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 72
+0%
72
+0%
Palworld 31
+0%
31
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Valorant 159
+0%
159
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 47
+0%
47
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 15
+0%
15
+0%
Far Cry 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 44
+0%
44
+0%
Palworld 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 12
+0%
12
+0%
Palworld 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
+0%
21
+0%
Valorant 90
+0%
90
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 25
+0%
25
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+0%
5
+0%
Dota 2 45
+0%
45
+0%
Far Cry 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Palworld 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how R9 FURY X and GTX 1650 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • R9 FURY X is 29% faster in 1080p
  • R9 FURY X is 22% faster in 1440p
  • R9 FURY X is 30% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 22.49 17.08
Recency 24 June 2015 15 April 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 50 Watt

R9 FURY X has a 32% higher aggregate performance score.

GTX 1650 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 133% more advanced lithography process, and 450% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 FURY X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 FURY X is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile 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.

R9 FURY X Radeon R9 FURY X
vs
RX 590 Radeon RX 590
GTX 1650 Mobile GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
vs
HD 8970M Crossfire Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire
R9 FURY X Radeon R9 FURY X
vs
GTX 780 Ti GeForce GTX 780 Ti
R7 430 OEM AMD R7 430 OEM
vs
RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB 5060 Ti 16 GB
R7 450 OEM AMD R7 450 OEM
vs
RX 5700 5700
Pro Duo AMD Pro Duo
vs
Pro Vega II Vega II
Pro Duo AMD Pro Duo
vs
RX 5700 XT 5700 XT
R9 FURY X AMD R9 FURY X
vs
GeForce MX250 MX250
R9 FURY X AMD R9 FURY X
vs
RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB 5060 Ti 16 GB
R7 360 AMD R7 360
vs
Quadro K420 K420
R9 390 AMD R9 390
vs
RTX 3060 12 GB GA104 3060 12 GB GA104
R7 350X OEM AMD R7 350X OEM
vs
Arc 3 A370M A370M
R7 350X OEM AMD R7 350X OEM
vs
RTX 3050 Mobile Refresh 4 GB 3050 Mobile Refresh 4 GB

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.2 91 votes

Rate Radeon R9 FURY X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 4047 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 FURY X or GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.