Radeon RX 5300 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q with Radeon RX 5300, including specs and performance data.
RX 5300 outperforms GTX 1650 Max-Q by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 346 | 296 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 36.88 | 13.52 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 28 May 2020 (4 years ago) |
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 cores | 1024 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 930 MHz | 1327 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1125 MHz | 1645 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 72.00 | 144.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.304 TFLOPS | 4.632 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 88 |
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 size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 180 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1751 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.1 GB/s | 168.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.140 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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
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.
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 | 60
−16.7%
| 70−75
+16.7%
|
| 1440p | 30
−16.7%
| 35−40
+16.7%
|
| 4K | 18
−16.7%
| 21−24
+16.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
−15.4%
|
45−50
+15.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−16.3%
|
100−105
+16.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
−15.4%
|
45−50
+15.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 64
−17.2%
|
75−80
+17.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−16.3%
|
100−105
+16.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
−18.4%
|
45−50
+18.4%
|
| Fortnite | 138
−15.9%
|
160−170
+15.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 74
−21.6%
|
90−95
+21.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
−14.6%
|
55−60
+14.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85
−17.6%
|
100−105
+17.6%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−22%
|
150−160
+22%
|
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
−15.4%
|
45−50
+15.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 54
−20.4%
|
65−70
+20.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−16.3%
|
100−105
+16.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 167
−19.8%
|
200−210
+19.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 94
−17%
|
110−120
+17%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
−14.3%
|
40−45
+14.3%
|
| Fortnite | 80
−18.8%
|
95−100
+18.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 69
−15.9%
|
80−85
+15.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
−14.6%
|
55−60
+14.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
−16.1%
|
65−70
+16.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 28
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 71
−19.7%
|
85−90
+19.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 53
−13.2%
|
60−65
+13.2%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−22%
|
150−160
+22%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 49
−12.2%
|
55−60
+12.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 88
−13.6%
|
100−105
+13.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
−21.2%
|
40−45
+21.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55
−18.2%
|
65−70
+18.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 53
−13.2%
|
60−65
+13.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−22%
|
150−160
+22%
|
| Fortnite | 59
−18.6%
|
70−75
+18.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
−16.1%
|
130−140
+16.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−20%
|
30−33
+20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
−16.4%
|
170−180
+16.4%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−16.9%
|
180−190
+16.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 36
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−21.2%
|
40−45
+21.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−21.6%
|
45−50
+21.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−12.5%
|
27−30
+12.5%
|
| Fortnite | 36
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−20.5%
|
100−105
+20.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 19
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−20.4%
|
65−70
+20.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Fortnite | 11
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
This is how GTX 1650 Max-Q and RX 5300 compete in popular games:
- RX 5300 is 17% faster in 1080p
- RX 5300 is 17% faster in 1440p
- RX 5300 is 17% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.89 | 16.97 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 28 May 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 100 Watt |
GTX 1650 Max-Q has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
RX 5300, on the other hand, has a 22.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 5300 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is a notebook card while Radeon RX 5300 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.
