GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs Radeon R7 A360

Place in performance ranking	922	314
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	8.34
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2017)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	Meso	N18P-G0 / N18P-G61
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	5 May 2015 (9 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Current price	$2500	$1185

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 A360 and GTX 1650 Max-Q have a nearly equal value for money.

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	384	1024
Core clock speed	725 MHz	1020 MHz
Boost clock speed	1125 MHz	1245 MHz
Number of transistors	1,550 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	27.00	72.00
Floating-point performance	864.0 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon R7 A360 and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q 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.

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
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, GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1800 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	112.1 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.0	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.140
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.

R7 A360 1.57

GTX 1650 Max-Q 15.98
+918%

GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q outperforms Radeon R7 A360 by 918% based on our aggregate 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%

R7 A360 607

GTX 1650 Max-Q 6170
+916%

GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q outperforms Radeon R7 A360 by 916% in Passmark.

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	5−6 −1120%	61 +1120%
1440p	2−3 −1300%	28 +1300%
4K	1−2 −1800%	19 +1800%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3

−1150%

24−27
+1150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −1125%	49 +1125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −1250%	27−30 +1250%
Battlefield 5	6−7 −950%	63 +950%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −950%	42 +950%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1150%	24−27 +1150%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −1100%	48 +1100%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −1080%	59 +1080%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −957%	74 +957%
Hitman 3	3−4 −933%	30−35 +933%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 −967%	60−65 +967%
Metro Exodus	6−7 −1083%	71 +1083%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −980%	54 +980%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −1150%	50−55 +1150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 −920%	50−55 +920%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −925%	41 +925%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −1250%	27−30 +1250%
Battlefield 5	5−6 −1000%	55 +1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −1233%	40 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1150%	24−27 +1150%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1167%	38 +1167%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −925%	41 +925%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −1019%	179 +1019%
Hitman 3	3−4 −933%	30−35 +933%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 −967%	60−65 +967%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −960%	53 +960%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −1025%	45 +1025%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −1150%	50−55 +1150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −960%	53 +960%
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 −920%	50−55 +920%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −1900%	20 +1900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −1250%	27−30 +1250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1150%	25 +1150%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1150%	24−27 +1150%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −1200%	26 +1200%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −1000%	55 +1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 −967%	60−65 +967%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −1150%	50−55 +1150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −1400%	30 +1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 −920%	50−55 +920%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−950%

42
+950%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −1000%	33 +1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −1233%	40 +1233%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −1600%	17 +1600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −1200%	12−14 +1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −1900%	20−22 +1900%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	9−10
Far Cry 5	2−3 −1200%	24−27 +1200%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −933%	30−35 +933%
Hitman 3	1−2 −1800%	18−20 +1800%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −967%	30−35 +967%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −967%	32 +967%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −1600%	16−18 +1600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	10−11

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−1200%

24−27
+1200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1000%	11 +1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −1200%	13 +1200%
Hitman 3	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −1600%	16−18 +1600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2 −1100%	12 +1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −1700%	18 +1700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	8
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	8−9
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	8−9
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	3−4
Far Cry 5	0−1	9
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −1000%	21−24 +1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −1600%	16−18 +1600%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −1500%	16 +1500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	6−7