GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 M365X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M365X with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 outperforms R9 M365X by a whopping 431% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 769 | 323 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 6 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 27.99 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 19.26 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Tropo | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (10 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 640 | 896 |
| Compute units | 10 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 925 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 37.00 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.184 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 40 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 1024 KB |
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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x 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.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK support
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 | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 12−14
−433%
| 64
+433%
|
| 1440p | 7−8
−443%
| 38
+443%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−500%
| 24
+500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.33 |
| 1440p | no data | 3.92 |
| 4K | no data | 6.21 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−679%
|
100−110
+679%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−486%
|
40−45
+486%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−369%
|
61
+369%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−679%
|
100−110
+679%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−486%
|
40−45
+486%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
−523%
|
81
+523%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−527%
|
69
+527%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
−955%
|
211
+955%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−429%
|
90
+429%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−711%
|
73
+711%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−500%
|
90
+500%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−473%
|
292
+473%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−308%
|
53
+308%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−679%
|
100−110
+679%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−255%
|
230−240
+255%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−486%
|
40−45
+486%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−194%
|
97
+194%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
−469%
|
74
+469%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−473%
|
63
+473%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
−325%
|
85
+325%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−388%
|
83
+388%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−589%
|
62
+589%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
−636%
|
81
+636%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−483%
|
35
+483%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−473%
|
86
+473%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−545%
|
71
+545%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−410%
|
260
+410%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−292%
|
51
+292%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−486%
|
40−45
+486%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−179%
|
92
+179%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
−362%
|
60
+362%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−436%
|
59
+436%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−282%
|
65
+282%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−340%
|
66
+340%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−273%
|
41
+273%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−37.3%
|
70
+37.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
−205%
|
61
+205%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−457%
|
35−40
+457%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−415%
|
130−140
+415%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−3900%
|
40
+3900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−900%
|
20
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−467%
|
170−180
+467%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−392%
|
177
+392%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
−443%
|
38
+443%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−567%
|
40
+567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−411%
|
46
+411%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−520%
|
31
+520%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−500%
|
42
+500%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−120%
|
33
+120%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−361%
|
83
+361%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−436%
|
59
+436%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−850%
|
19
+850%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−850%
|
19
+850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−650%
|
30
+650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−550%
|
26
+550%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−175%
|
11
+175%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how R9 M365X and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 433% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 443% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 500% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 3900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 performs better in 58 tests (91%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.50 | 18.57 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 23 April 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
GTX 1650 has a 430.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M365X in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M365X is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
