GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R5 M255
Aggregate performance score
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by a whopping 1377% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 964 | 253 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 2 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 18.95 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | Topaz Pro / Sun | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 May 2014 (10 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
| Current price | no data | $185 (1.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
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 | 320 | 896 |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 940 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 940 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.56 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point performance | 721.9 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon R5 M255 and GeForce GTX 1650 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.
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | no data |
| HDMI | no data | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | no data |
| Enduro | - | no data |
| HD3D | + | no data |
| PowerTune | + | no data |
| DualGraphics | 1 | no data |
| TrueAudio | - | no data |
| ZeroCore | + | no data |
| Switchable graphics | 1 | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | no data |
| CUDA | no data | 7.5 |
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 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 1377% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 1375% in Passmark.
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 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 665% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 728% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 752% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 735% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
Benchmark coverage: 3%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 1423% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
Benchmark coverage: 3%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 422% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
Benchmark coverage: 3%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 94% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
Benchmark coverage: 3%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 808% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 123% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 529% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 261% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Radeon R5 M255 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 202% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - Maya
This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.
Benchmark coverage: 2%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 1393% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.
SPECviewperf 12 - Catia
Benchmark coverage: 2%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 804% in SPECviewperf 12 - Catia.
SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks
Benchmark coverage: 2%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 424% in SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks.
SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX
Benchmark coverage: 2%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 97% in SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX.
SPECviewperf 12 - Creo
Benchmark coverage: 2%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 99% in SPECviewperf 12 - Creo.
SPECviewperf 12 - Medical
Benchmark coverage: 2%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M255 by 559% in SPECviewperf 12 - Medical.
SPECviewperf 12 - Energy
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Radeon R5 M255 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 294% in SPECviewperf 12 - Energy.
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:
| 900p | 21
−1329%
| 300−350
+1329%
|
| Full HD | 13
−431%
| 69
+431%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−1750%
| 37
+1750%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−2300%
| 24
+2300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
−433%
|
30−35
+433%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 53 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−1633%
|
52
+1633%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−700%
|
30−35
+700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−814%
|
64
+814%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 80 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1400%
|
90
+1400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−1800%
|
76
+1800%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 15
−667%
|
115
+667%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9
−756%
|
77
+756%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10
−840%
|
94
+840%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 47 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−2000%
|
63
+2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−700%
|
30−35
+700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−500%
|
90
+500%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 58 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1283%
|
83
+1283%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−850%
|
38
+850%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 11
−700%
|
88
+700%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−3050%
|
63
+3050%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4
−1375%
|
59
+1375%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4
−1750%
|
74
+1750%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 25 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−167%
|
8
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−700%
|
30−35
+700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−457%
|
39
+457%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−983%
|
65
+983%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5
−1100%
|
60
+1100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−1300%
|
42
+1300%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−2600%
|
54
+2600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−2000%
|
42
+2000%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−4900%
|
50
+4900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 17 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−700%
|
32
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1850%
|
39
+1850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−4500%
|
46
+4500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−760%
|
43
+760%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2200%
|
21−24
+2200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1017%
|
67
+1017%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−2200%
|
21−24
+2200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 13 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 5 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−2200%
|
23
+2200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−425%
|
21
+425%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−467%
|
17
+467%
|
This is how R5 M255 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 1329% faster in 900p
- GTX 1650 is 431% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 1750% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 2300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 4900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1650 surpassed R5 M255 in all 38 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.38 | 20.38 |
| Recency | 1 May 2014 | 23 April 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M255 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M255 is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
