NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs AMD Radeon R9 290X

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

R9 290X
19.16

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R9 290X by 6% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking270252
Place by popularitynot in top-1002
Value for money10.1119.08
ArchitectureGCN (2011−2017)Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code nameHawaii XTTU117
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date24 October 2013 (10 years old)23 April 2019 (4 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 $149
Current price$20 (0x MSRP)$185 (1.2x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 has 89% better value for money than R9 290X.

Technical specs

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 cores2816896
Core clock speedno data1485 MHz
Boost clock speed947 MHz1665 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate176.093.24
Floating-point performance5,632 gflopsno data

Size and 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-pinNone

Memory

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth320 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

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, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity+no data
HDMI++
DisplayPort support+no data

Technologies

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

AppAcceleration+no data
CrossFire1no data
Enduro-no data
FreeSync1no data
HD3D+no data
LiquidVR1no data
PowerTune-no data
TressFX1no data
TrueAudio+no data
ZeroCore-no data
UVD+no data
DDMA audio+no data

API support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
Mantle-no data
CUDAno data7.5

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.

R9 290X 19.16
GTX 1650 20.32
+6.1%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R9 290X by 6% in our combined 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%

R9 290X 7425
GTX 1650 7875
+6.1%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R9 290X by 6% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

R9 290X 37284
GTX 1650 44694
+19.9%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R9 290X by 20% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

R9 290X 16168
+18.5%
GTX 1650 13645

Radeon R9 290X outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 18% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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%

R9 290X 11717
+27.3%
GTX 1650 9203

Radeon R9 290X outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 27% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R9 290X 73987
+46.4%
GTX 1650 50549

Radeon R9 290X outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 46% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

R9 290X 332042
GTX 1650 373333
+12.4%

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R9 290X by 12% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

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 HD87
+24.3%
70
−24.3%
1440p35−40
−8.6%
38
+8.6%
4K50
+117%
23
−117%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
−6.7%
30−35
+6.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−35.9%
53
+35.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
−42.4%
47
+42.4%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+4.9%
61
−4.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
−52%
76
+52%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
−6.7%
30−35
+6.7%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−36%
68
+36%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
−26.9%
66
+26.9%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−36.4%
90
+36.4%
Hitman 3 55−60
−38.2%
76
+38.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
−34.1%
55
+34.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
−62.5%
52
+62.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
−41.5%
58
+41.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−51.4%
56
+51.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−20.5%
47
+20.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
−6.1%
35
+6.1%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+20.8%
53
−20.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
−16%
58
+16%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
−6.7%
30−35
+6.7%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−24%
62
+24%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
−19.2%
62
+19.2%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−25.8%
83
+25.8%
Hitman 3 55−60
−12.7%
62
+12.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+0%
41
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
−12.9%
35
+12.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+14.3%
28
−14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
−14.6%
47
+14.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75
+1.4%
74
−1.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−29.7%
48
+29.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+56%
25
−56%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+154%
13
−154%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+25.5%
51
−25.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
−6.7%
30−35
+6.7%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−16%
58
+16%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
−9.6%
57
+9.6%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+1.5%
65
−1.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
−44.8%
42
+44.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+76.2%
21
−76.2%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
−24.1%
36
+24.1%
Hitman 3 30−35
−19.4%
37
+19.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
26
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
−11.1%
20
+11.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−21.4%
17
+21.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
−16%
29
+16%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+11.1%
18
−11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+30.8%
13
−30.8%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+7.7%
39
−7.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−21.9%
39
+21.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
−10.8%
41
+10.8%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−17.9%
46
+17.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12−14
−7.7%
14
+7.7%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
−42.9%
20
+42.9%
Hitman 3 18−20
−5.6%
19
+5.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+50%
8
−50%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−9.1%
12
+9.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−10%
10−12
+10%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−8.3%
13
+8.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+7.7%
26
−7.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−8.3%
13
+8.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+100%
5
−100%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+4.8%
21
−4.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
−26.7%
19
+26.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
−16.7%
21
+16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
−11.1%
30
+11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+0%
8
+0%

This is how R9 290X and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • R9 290X is 24.3% faster than GTX 1650

1440p resolution:

  • GTX 1650 is 8.6% faster than R9 290X

4K resolution:

  • R9 290X is 117% faster than GTX 1650

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

  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 290X is 154% faster than the GTX 1650.
  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 62.5% faster than the R9 290X.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 290X is ahead in 16 tests (24%)
  • GTX 1650 is ahead in 48 tests (71%)
  • there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 19.16 20.32
Recency 24 October 2013 23 April 2019
Cost $549 $149
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 75 Watt

We couldn't decide between Radeon R9 290X and GeForce GTX 1650. The differences in performance seem too small.


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

User ratings

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


AMD Radeon R9 290X
Radeon R9 290X
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User ratings: view and submit

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


4.2 415 votes

Rate AMD Radeon R9 290X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 20199 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

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