GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R5 M320
Aggregate performance score
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M320 by a whopping 1672% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1035 | 253 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 2 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 18.95 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | Exo UL/ULT/ULP | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 May 2015 (9 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 | 855 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 855 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.10 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point performance | 547.2 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon R5 M320 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 | 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 |
| 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® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 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 M320 by 1672% 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 M320 by 1675% 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 M320 by 726% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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 M320 by 917% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R5 M320 by 716% in 3DMark Ice Storm 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 | 3−4
−2200%
| 69
+2200%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−1750%
| 37
+1750%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−2300%
| 24
+2300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−1633%
|
52
+1633%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−967%
|
64
+967%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1700%
|
90
+1700%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−1800%
|
76
+1800%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−858%
|
115
+858%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−7600%
|
77
+7600%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−944%
|
94
+944%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−2000%
|
63
+2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1400%
|
90
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1560%
|
83
+1560%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−850%
|
38
+850%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−633%
|
88
+633%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−6200%
|
63
+6200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−556%
|
59
+556%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1750%
|
74
+1750%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−167%
|
8
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−550%
|
39
+550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1200%
|
65
+1200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−400%
|
60
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−950%
|
42
+950%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−5300%
|
54
+5300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−4100%
|
42
+4100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−4900%
|
50
+4900%
|
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 | 4−5
−975%
|
43
+975%
|
| 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 | 2−3
−750%
|
17
+750%
|
This is how R5 M320 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 2200% 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 Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 7600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1650 surpassed R5 M320 in all 38 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.15 | 20.38 |
| Recency | 7 May 2015 | 23 April 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M320 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M320 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.
