GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 270X

Place in the ranking	396	271
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.86	38.38
Power efficiency	4.86	18.84
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Curacao	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)	$199	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 has 555% better value for money than R9 270X.

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	1280	896
Core clock speed	no data	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	2,800 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	180 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	84.00	93.24
Floating-point processing power	2.688 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	80	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 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2 x 6-pin	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	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	179.2 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	+
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
UVD	+	-
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.

R9 270X 12.68

GTX 1650 20.48
+61.5%

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.

R9 270X 4876

GTX 1650 7874
+61.5%

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.

R9 270X 6560

GTX 1650 9203
+40.3%

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	40−45 −72.5%	69 +72.5%
1440p	24−27 −66.7%	40 +66.7%
4K	14−16 −64.3%	23 +64.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.98 −130%	2.16 +130%
1440p	8.29 −123%	3.73 +123%
4K	14.21 −119%	6.48 +119%

GTX 1650 has 130% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 1650 has 123% lower cost per frame in 1440p
GTX 1650 has 119% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −60.9%	35−40 +60.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −64%	40−45 +64%
Elden Ring	35−40 −71.1%	65−70 +71.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −61%	66 +61%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −60.9%	35−40 +60.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +47.1%	17 −47.1%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −84.3%	94 +84.3%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −88.6%	66 +88.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 −141%	77 +141%
Valorant	50−55 −70%	85 +70%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −82.9%	75 +82.9%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −60.9%	35−40 +60.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +78.6%	14 −78.6%
Dota 2	45−50 −78.3%	82 +78.3%
Elden Ring	35−40 −71.1%	65−70 +71.1%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −83.7%	90 +83.7%
Fortnite	70−75 −13.9%	82 +13.9%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −45.1%	74 +45.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	45−50 −66.7%	75 +66.7%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −25.7%	44 +25.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 −45.7%	130−140 +45.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +14.3%	28 −14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 −68.4%	60−65 +68.4%
Valorant	50−55 +8.7%	46 −8.7%
World of Tanks	170−180 −36.6%	230−240 +36.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −34.1%	55 +34.1%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −60.9%	35−40 +60.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +108%	12 −108%
Dota 2	45−50 −100%	92 +100%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −38.8%	65−70 +38.8%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −21.6%	62 +21.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 +54.1%	61 −54.1%
Valorant	50−55 −40%	70 +40%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −88.2%	30−35 +88.2%
Elden Ring	18−20 −78.9%	30−35 +78.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −83.3%	30−35 +83.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	85−90 −102%	170−180 +102%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 −54.5%	17 +54.5%
World of Tanks	90−95 −54.4%	130−140 +54.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −52%	38 +52%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −41.7%	16−18 +41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +28.6%	7 −28.6%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −93.1%	55−60 +93.1%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −50%	45 +50%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −51.9%	41 +51.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −75%	27−30 +75%
Valorant	30−35 −29%	40 +29%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −113%	16−18 +113%
Dota 2	21−24 −26.1%	29 +26.1%
Elden Ring	8−9 −87.5%	14−16 +87.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 −26.1%	29 +26.1%
Metro Exodus	8−9 −50%	12 +50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −67.6%	60−65 +67.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −62.5%	12−14 +62.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −26.1%	29 +26.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −50%	18 +50%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −113%	16−18 +113%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3 +0%
Dota 2	21−24 −157%	59 +157%
Far Cry 5	16−18 −62.5%	24−27 +62.5%
Fortnite	14−16 −78.6%	24−27 +78.6%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −52.9%	26 +52.9%
Valorant	12−14 −61.5%	21 +61.5%

This is how R9 270X and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 73% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 67% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 64% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 270X is 108% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 is 157% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R9 270X is ahead in 7 tests (11%)
GTX 1650 is ahead in 55 tests (87%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	12.68	20.48
Recency	8 October 2013	23 April 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	180 Watt	75 Watt

GTX 1650 has a 61.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 140% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 270X in performance tests.

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