Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB vs GeForce GTX 1650
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 9060 XT 16GB outperforms GTX 1650 by a whopping 164% 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 | 307 | 69 |
| Place by popularity | 3 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 31.64 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 18.80 | no data |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 4 (2025) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (6 years ago) | 2 January 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 896 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1485 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1665 MHz | 2530 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 93.24 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.984 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 56 | no data |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | no data |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 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.
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 | 64
−117%
| 139
+117%
|
| 1440p | 38
−71.1%
| 65
+71.1%
|
| 4K | 24
−79.2%
| 43
+79.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.33 | no data |
| 1440p | 3.92 | no data |
| 4K | 6.21 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−142%
|
260−270
+142%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−195%
|
120−130
+195%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 75−80
−196%
|
230−240
+196%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 61
−149%
|
150−160
+149%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−142%
|
260−270
+142%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−195%
|
120−130
+195%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 75−80
−196%
|
230−240
+196%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 69
−125%
|
150−160
+125%
|
| Fortnite | 211
−2.8%
|
210−220
+2.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90
−113%
|
190−200
+113%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 73
−110%
|
150−160
+110%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90
−93.3%
|
170−180
+93.3%
|
| Valorant | 292
+6.2%
|
270−280
−6.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 53
−187%
|
150−160
+187%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−142%
|
260−270
+142%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
−20.3%
|
270−280
+20.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−195%
|
120−130
+195%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 75−80
−196%
|
230−240
+196%
|
| Dota 2 | 97
−158%
|
250−260
+158%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 63
−146%
|
150−160
+146%
|
| Fortnite | 85
−155%
|
210−220
+155%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 83
−131%
|
190−200
+131%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 62
−147%
|
150−160
+147%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 81
−85.2%
|
150−160
+85.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
−254%
|
120−130
+254%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 86
−102%
|
170−180
+102%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
−266%
|
260
+266%
|
| Valorant | 260
−5.8%
|
270−280
+5.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 51
−198%
|
150−160
+198%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−195%
|
120−130
+195%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 75−80
−196%
|
230−240
+196%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
−161%
|
240−250
+161%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
−163%
|
150−160
+163%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65
−195%
|
190−200
+195%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 66
−164%
|
170−180
+164%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
−224%
|
133
+224%
|
| Valorant | 70
−157%
|
180−190
+157%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 61
−256%
|
210−220
+256%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−248%
|
130−140
+248%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−157%
|
350−400
+157%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
−163%
|
100−110
+163%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
−290%
|
75−80
+290%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−135%
|
400−450
+135%
|
| Valorant | 177
−74.6%
|
300−350
+74.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 39
−213%
|
120−130
+213%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−256%
|
60−65
+256%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 30−35
−244%
|
110−120
+244%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
−213%
|
120−130
+213%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46
−235%
|
150−160
+235%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
−216%
|
98
+216%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 42
−229%
|
130−140
+229%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−271%
|
60−65
+271%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 18−20
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
−255%
|
110−120
+255%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
−300%
|
45−50
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
−227%
|
85
+227%
|
| Valorant | 83
−253%
|
290−300
+253%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
−295%
|
80−85
+295%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−135%
|
40−45
+135%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 18−20
−168%
|
50−55
+168%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
−154%
|
150−160
+154%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
−279%
|
70−75
+279%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
−257%
|
100−110
+257%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
−215%
|
80−85
+215%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 11
−555%
|
70−75
+555%
|
This is how GTX 1650 and RX 9060 XT 16GB compete in popular games:
- RX 9060 XT 16GB is 117% faster in 1080p
- RX 9060 XT 16GB is 71% faster in 1440p
- RX 9060 XT 16GB is 79% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 6% faster.
- in Fortnite, with 4K resolution and the Epic Preset, the RX 9060 XT 16GB is 555% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- RX 9060 XT 16GB is ahead in 58 tests (98%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.60 | 49.03 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 2 January 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 4 nm |
RX 9060 XT 16GB has a 163.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 200% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 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.
