GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs Radeon R9 285
Aggregate performance score
Radeon R9 285 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q by a small 8% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 297 | 314 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 16.15 | 8.33 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2017) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | Tonga | N18P-G0 / N18P-G61 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (9 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | no data |
| Current price | $85 (0.3x MSRP) | $1185 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R9 285 has 94% better value for money than GTX 1650 Max-Q.
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 | 1792 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 918 MHz | 1020 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1245 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 102.8 | 72.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 3,290 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon R9 285 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 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 221 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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, GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5.5 GB/s | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 176.0 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 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.
Radeon R9 285 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q by 8% based on our aggregated 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%
Radeon R9 285 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q by 8% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon R9 285 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q by 10% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 | 65−70
+6.6%
| 61
−6.6%
|
| 1440p | 30−35
−6.7%
| 32
+6.7%
|
| 4K | 18−21
−5.6%
| 19
+5.6%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.28 | 15.93 |
| Recency | 2 September 2014 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 35 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 285 and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q.
Be aware that Radeon R9 285 is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is a notebook one.
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.
