GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R7 250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 250 and GeForce GTX 1650, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1650 outperforms R7 250 by a whopping 645% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 799 | 266 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.10 | 39.19 |
| Power efficiency | 2.93 | 18.91 |
| 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) | $89 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1650 has 39090% better value for money than R7 250.
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 | 384 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.20 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8064 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 24 | 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 | 2-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.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 20
−245%
| 69
+245%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−825%
| 37
+825%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−667%
| 23
+667%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.45 | 2.16 |
| 1440p | 22.25 | 4.03 |
| 4K | 29.67 | 6.48 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−540%
|
30−35
+540%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−489%
|
53
+489%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−4600%
|
47
+4600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1875%
|
79
+1875%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−643%
|
52
+643%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−540%
|
30−35
+540%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1180%
|
64
+1180%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−1043%
|
80
+1043%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−1536%
|
229
+1536%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−513%
|
49
+513%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−1290%
|
292
+1290%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−3267%
|
101
+3267%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−1000%
|
77
+1000%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−858%
|
115
+858%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−489%
|
224
+489%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−822%
|
83
+822%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−3400%
|
35
+3400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1700%
|
72
+1700%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−557%
|
46
+557%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−540%
|
30−35
+540%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−940%
|
52
+940%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−700%
|
56
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−1336%
|
201
+1336%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−488%
|
47
+488%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−1138%
|
260
+1138%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−2267%
|
71
+2267%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−686%
|
55
+686%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−517%
|
74
+517%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−229%
|
45−50
+229%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−442%
|
206
+442%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−178%
|
25
+178%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−1200%
|
13
+1200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−540%
|
30−35
+540%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−680%
|
39
+680%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−364%
|
65
+364%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−413%
|
41
+413%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−186%
|
60
+186%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−417%
|
62
+417%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−200%
|
42
+200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+81%
|
21
−81%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−671%
|
54
+671%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−950%
|
42
+950%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
−800%
|
36
+800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−800%
|
18
+800%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−1050%
|
21−24
+1050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−700%
|
24
+700%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−238%
|
27
+238%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−514%
|
43
+514%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1100%
|
24−27
+1100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
−806%
|
145
+806%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−483%
|
35
+483%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1900%
|
20
+1900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−750%
|
17
+750%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−400%
|
5
+400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 30 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 8 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−325%
|
17
+325%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| 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
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
This is how R7 250 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 245% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 825% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 667% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R7 250 is 81% faster.
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 4600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 250 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 59 tests (84%)
- there's a draw in 10 tests (14%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.74 | 20.40 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
GTX 1650 has a 644.5% 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 250 in performance tests.
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.
