GeForce GTX 1650 TU106 vs Radeon R9 280

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking365not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.41no data
Power efficiency4.94no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameTahitiTU106
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date4 March 2014 (10 years ago)18 June 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1792896
Core clock speedno data1410 MHz
Boost clock speed933 MHz1590 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt90 Watt
Texture fill rate104.589.04
Floating-point processing power3.344 TFLOPS2.849 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs11256
Tensor Coresno data112
Ray Tracing Coresno data14

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length275 mm229 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin1x 6-pin

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount3 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth240 GB/s192.0 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity+-
HDMI++

Supported technologies

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

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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2
CUDA-7.5

Pros & cons summary


Recency 4 March 2014 18 June 2020
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 90 Watt

GTX 1650 TU106 has an age advantage of 6 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 122.2% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R9 280 and GeForce GTX 1650 TU106. We've got no test results to judge.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R9 280
Radeon R9 280
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 TU106
GeForce GTX 1650 TU106

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 399 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 275 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 TU106 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.