Radeon R9 M390 vs GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms Radeon R9 M390 by 167% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 190 | 418 |
| Place by popularity | 56 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 27.05 | no data |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2021) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | TU116 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 October 2019 (4 years ago) | 9 June 2015 (8 years ago) |
| Current price | $206 | no data |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1280 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1530 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1725 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | 5000 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 138.0 | no data |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and Radeon R9 M390 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
Memory
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | no data |
| Eyefinity | no data | 1 |
| HDMI | + | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | - |
| Enduro | no data | - |
| FreeSync | no data | 1 |
| HD3D | no data | + |
| PowerTune | no data | + |
| DualGraphics | no data | 1 |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| ZeroCore | no data | + |
| Switchable graphics | no data | 1 |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Multi Monitor | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | Not Listed |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | no data |
| Mantle | no data | + |
| CUDA | 7.5 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms Radeon R9 M390 by 167% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms Radeon R9 M390 by 167% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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 | 72
+67.4%
| 43
−67.4%
|
| 1440p | 36
+200%
| 12−14
−200%
|
| 4K | 22
+10%
| 20
−10%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
+320%
|
14−16
−320%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 50−55
+143%
|
21−24
−143%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 53
+253%
|
14−16
−253%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 72
+118%
|
30−35
−118%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 65−70
+165%
|
24−27
−165%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50
+233%
|
14−16
−233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+288%
|
24−27
−288%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 89
+242%
|
24−27
−242%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+149%
|
35−40
−149%
|
| Hitman 3 | 105
+320%
|
24−27
−320%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 74
+270%
|
20−22
−270%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 71
+318%
|
16−18
−318%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 85
+305%
|
21−24
−305%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 71
+318%
|
16−18
−318%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 50−55
+143%
|
21−24
−143%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 26
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 58
+75.8%
|
30−35
−75.8%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 65−70
+165%
|
24−27
−165%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+167%
|
14−16
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 86
+258%
|
24−27
−258%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 83
+219%
|
24−27
−219%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+149%
|
35−40
−149%
|
| Hitman 3 | 83
+232%
|
24−27
−232%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 58
+190%
|
20−22
−190%
|
| Metro Exodus | 51
+240%
|
14−16
−240%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30
+76.5%
|
16−18
−76.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 67
+219%
|
21−24
−219%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 90
+190%
|
31
−190%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 61
+259%
|
16−18
−259%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 50−55
+143%
|
21−24
−143%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 15
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 57
+72.7%
|
30−35
−72.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+127%
|
14−16
−127%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 79
+229%
|
24−27
−229%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 76
+192%
|
24−27
−192%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+149%
|
35−40
−149%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50
+178%
|
18
−178%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21
+23.5%
|
16−18
−23.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Hitman 3 | 51
+240%
|
14−16
−240%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 39
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 11
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 13
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 42
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 54
+260%
|
14−16
−260%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55
+244%
|
16−18
−244%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+256%
|
9−10
−256%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Hitman 3 | 25
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 19
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 32
+167%
|
12
−167%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 28
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
This is how GTX 1650 SUPER and R9 M390 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 SUPER is 67.4% faster than R9 M390 in 1080p
- GTX 1650 SUPER is 200% faster than R9 M390 in 1440p
- GTX 1650 SUPER is 10% faster than R9 M390 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 SUPER is 433% faster than the R9 M390.
- in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M390 is 60% faster than the GTX 1650 SUPER.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead in 66 tests (97%)
- R9 M390 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (1%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 26.19 | 9.81 |
| Recency | 29 October 2019 | 9 June 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M390 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is a desktop card while Radeon R9 M390 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
