GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 M385
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R9 M385 by 283% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 576 | 254 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.41 | 19.01 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | Strato | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 16 June 2015 (8 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
| Current price | $999 | $185 (1.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1650 has 4537% better value for money than R9 M385.
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 | 896 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 56.00 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,792 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon R9 M385 and GeForce GTX 1650 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 | 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 | 1500 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | 1 | no data |
| HDMI | no data | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | no data |
| Enduro | - | no data |
| FreeSync | 1 | no data |
| HD3D | + | no data |
| PowerTune | + | no data |
| DualGraphics | 1 | no data |
| TrueAudio | + | no data |
| ZeroCore | + | no data |
| Switchable graphics | 1 | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | no data |
| 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.
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R9 M385 by 283% 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%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon R9 M385 by 282% in Passmark.
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 | 18−20
−289%
| 70
+289%
|
| 1440p | 9−10
−322%
| 38
+322%
|
| 4K | 6−7
−283%
| 23
+283%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
−430%
|
53
+430%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
−840%
|
47
+840%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−281%
|
61
+281%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
−347%
|
76
+347%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−518%
|
68
+518%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
−450%
|
66
+450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−429%
|
90
+429%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
−533%
|
76
+533%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−450%
|
55
+450%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−420%
|
52
+420%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−346%
|
58
+346%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
−700%
|
56
+700%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
−370%
|
47
+370%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
−600%
|
35
+600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−231%
|
53
+231%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
−241%
|
58
+241%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−464%
|
62
+464%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
−417%
|
62
+417%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−388%
|
83
+388%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
−417%
|
62
+417%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−310%
|
41
+310%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−338%
|
35
+338%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−180%
|
28
+180%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−262%
|
47
+262%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−573%
|
74
+573%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
−586%
|
48
+586%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
−150%
|
25
+150%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
−160%
|
13
+160%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−219%
|
51
+219%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−256%
|
30−35
+256%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−427%
|
58
+427%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
−375%
|
57
+375%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−282%
|
65
+282%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−282%
|
42
+282%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
−200%
|
21
+200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−350%
|
36
+350%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
−311%
|
37
+311%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−136%
|
26
+136%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−567%
|
20
+567%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−467%
|
17
+467%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−263%
|
29
+263%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−500%
|
18
+500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3800%
|
39
+3800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−388%
|
39
+388%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
−720%
|
41
+720%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−557%
|
46
+557%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−360%
|
21−24
+360%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−1300%
|
14
+1300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−400%
|
20
+400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−280%
|
19
+280%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1200%
|
26
+1200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−333%
|
13
+333%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−150%
|
5
+150%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 21 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−280%
|
19
+280%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
−200%
|
21
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−650%
|
30
+650%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 8 |
This is how R9 M385 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 289% faster than R9 M385 in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 322% faster than R9 M385 in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 283% faster than R9 M385 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 is 3800% faster than the R9 M385.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 62 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.32 | 20.35 |
| Recency | 16 June 2015 | 23 April 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M385 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M385 is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop 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.
