GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R7 240

Place in the ranking	841	264
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.16	39.47
Power efficiency	5.38	18.84
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Oland	TU117
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$69	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 has 24569% better value for money than R7 240.

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	320	896
Core clock speed	no data	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	780 MHz	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	950 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	14.00	93.24
Floating-point processing power	0.448 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	32
TMUs	20	56

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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	168 mm	229 mm
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	N/A	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1150 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
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. 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.

R7 240 2.33

GTX 1650 20.40
+776%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

R7 240 899

GTX 1650 7873
+776%

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.

R7 240 1220

GTX 1650 9203
+654%

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	7−8 −857%	67 +857%
1440p	4−5 −825%	37 +825%
4K	2−3 −1100%	24 +1100%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	9.86	2.22
1440p	17.25	4.03
4K	34.50	6.21

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−35

+0%

30−35

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	53 +0%	53 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	47 +0%	47 +0%
Battlefield 5	79 +0%	79 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	52 +0%	52 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	64 +0%	64 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	80 +0%	80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	229 +0%	229 +0%
Hitman 3	49 +0%	49 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	292 +0%	292 +0%
Metro Exodus	101 +0%	101 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	77 +0%	77 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	115 +0%	115 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	224 +0%	224 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	83 +0%	83 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35 +0%	35 +0%
Battlefield 5	72 +0%	72 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	46 +0%	46 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	52 +0%	52 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	56 +0%	56 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	201 +0%	201 +0%
Hitman 3	47 +0%	47 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	260 +0%	260 +0%
Metro Exodus	71 +0%	71 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55 +0%	55 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	74 +0%	74 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	206 +0%	206 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	25 +0%	25 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +0%	13 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8 +0%	8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	39 +0%	39 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65 +0%	65 +0%
Hitman 3	41 +0%	41 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60 +0%	60 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	62 +0%	62 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	42 +0%	42 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21 +0%	21 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	42 +0%	42 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	36 +0%	36 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18 +0%	18 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +0%	13 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	24 +0%	24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	122 +0%	122 +0%
Hitman 3	27 +0%	27 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	43 +0%	43 +0%
Metro Exodus	41 +0%	41 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45 +0%	45 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	145 +0%	145 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	20 +0%	20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	17 +0%	17 +0%
Hitman 3	13 +0%	13 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	41 +0%	41 +0%
Metro Exodus	27 +0%	27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	26 +0%	26 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	13 +0%	13 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5 +0%	5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	12 +0%	12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +0%	30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	26 +0%	26 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8 +0%	8 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

This is how R7 240 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 857% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 825% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 1100% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.33	20.40
Recency	8 October 2013	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	75 Watt

R7 240 has 50% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 775.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 240 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.