Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition vs GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile and Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1650 Mobile outperforms R9 M295X Mac Edition by a substantial 38% 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 | 342 | 425 |
| Place by popularity | 60 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 25.87 | 3.75 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | Amethyst |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 April 2020 (5 years ago) | 23 November 2014 (10 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 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1380 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 99.84 | 108.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.195 TFLOPS | 3.482 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 128 |
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 | MXM-B (3.0) |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1362 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 174.3 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.140 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
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 | 58
+45%
| 40−45
−45%
|
| 1440p | 37
+54.2%
| 24−27
−54.2%
|
| 4K | 23
+43.8%
| 16−18
−43.8%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 131
+37.9%
|
95−100
−37.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
| God of War | 47
+56.7%
|
30−33
−56.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+50%
|
40−45
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 113
+41.3%
|
80−85
−41.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+50%
|
40−45
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+44.6%
|
65−70
−44.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82
+49.1%
|
55−60
−49.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 68
+51.1%
|
45−50
−51.1%
|
| God of War | 38
+40.7%
|
27−30
−40.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+44.4%
|
45−50
−44.4%
|
| Valorant | 164
+49.1%
|
110−120
−49.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+50%
|
40−45
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 67
+48.9%
|
45−50
−48.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130
+44.4%
|
90−95
−44.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32
+52.4%
|
21−24
−52.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 96
+47.7%
|
65−70
−47.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 54
+54.3%
|
35−40
−54.3%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+44.6%
|
65−70
−44.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
+45.5%
|
55−60
−45.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+50%
|
40−45
−50%
|
| God of War | 32
+52.4%
|
21−24
−52.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 59
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+44.4%
|
45−50
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+55%
|
40−45
−55%
|
| Valorant | 148
+48%
|
100−105
−48%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+47.5%
|
40−45
−47.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 89
+48.3%
|
60−65
−48.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+51.4%
|
35−40
−51.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 62
+55%
|
40−45
−55%
|
| God of War | 20
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 71
+42%
|
50−55
−42%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+42.1%
|
95−100
−42.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 72
+44%
|
50−55
−44%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+41.1%
|
90−95
−41.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+49.1%
|
110−120
−49.1%
|
| Valorant | 159
+44.5%
|
110−120
−44.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+56.7%
|
30−33
−56.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+45.8%
|
24−27
−45.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+43.3%
|
30−33
−43.3%
|
| God of War | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 44
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+52.4%
|
21−24
−52.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Valorant | 90
+38.5%
|
65−70
−38.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 25
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 45
+50%
|
30−33
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+50%
|
12−14
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
| God of War | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
This is how GTX 1650 Mobile and R9 M295X Mac Edition compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 45% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 54% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 44% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.98 | 12.32 |
| Recency | 15 April 2020 | 23 November 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 250 Watt |
GTX 1650 Mobile has a 37.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition 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.
