GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 M385

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M385 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.

R9 M385
2015
4 GB GDDR5
5.36

GTX 1650 outperforms R9 M385 by a whopping 282% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking617272
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data37.80
Power efficiencyno data18.84
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameStratoTU117
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date5 May 2015 (9 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

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 cores896896
Core clock speed900 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHz1665 MHz
Number of transistors2,080 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data75 Watt
Texture fill rate56.0093.24
Floating-point processing power1.792 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs5656

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x 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+-
TrueAudio+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listed1.2
Vulkan-1.2.131
Mantle+-
CUDA-7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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 M385 5.36
GTX 1650 20.48
+282%

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.

R9 M385 2060
GTX 1650 7875
+282%

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 HD18−20
−283%
69
+283%
1440p10−12
−300%
40
+300%
4K6−7
−283%
23
+283%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.16
1440pno data3.73
4Kno data6.48

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−185%
35−40
+185%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
−273%
40−45
+273%
Elden Ring 12−14
−400%
65−70
+400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−313%
66
+313%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−185%
35−40
+185%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
−54.5%
17
+54.5%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−327%
94
+327%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−408%
66
+408%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
−381%
77
+381%
Valorant 14−16
−507%
85
+507%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−369%
75
+369%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−185%
35−40
+185%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
−27.3%
14
+27.3%
Dota 2 18−20
−356%
82
+356%
Elden Ring 12−14
−400%
65−70
+400%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−246%
90
+246%
Fortnite 30−35
−156%
82
+156%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−236%
74
+236%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
−317%
75
+317%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−238%
44
+238%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−204%
130−140
+204%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
−75%
28
+75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−282%
65−70
+282%
Valorant 14−16
−229%
46
+229%
World of Tanks 85−90
−170%
230−240
+170%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−244%
55
+244%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−185%
35−40
+185%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
−9.1%
12
+9.1%
Dota 2 18−20
−411%
92
+411%
Far Cry 5 24−27
−162%
65−70
+162%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−182%
62
+182%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−35.6%
61
+35.6%
Valorant 14−16
−400%
70
+400%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 4−5
−700%
30−35
+700%
Elden Ring 6−7
−467%
30−35
+467%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
−560%
30−35
+560%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−406%
170−180
+406%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−325%
17
+325%
World of Tanks 35−40
−256%
130−140
+256%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
−375%
38
+375%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−88.9%
16−18
+88.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−75%
7
+75%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−409%
55−60
+409%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−463%
45
+463%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−720%
41
+720%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−367%
27−30
+367%
Valorant 14−16
−186%
40
+186%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
−70.6%
29
+70.6%
Elden Ring 3−4
−400%
14−16
+400%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−81.3%
29
+81.3%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−1100%
12
+1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
−313%
60−65
+313%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−70.6%
29
+70.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−350%
18
+350%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3
+50%
Dota 2 16−18
−247%
59
+247%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−333%
24−27
+333%
Fortnite 5−6
−400%
24−27
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−550%
26
+550%
Valorant 5−6
−320%
21
+320%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

This is how R9 M385 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 283% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 300% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 283% faster in 4K

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

  • in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 1100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is ahead in 61 test (97%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.36 20.48
Recency 5 May 2015 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm

GTX 1650 has a 282.1% 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 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.

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 M385
Radeon R9 M385
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

Other comparisons

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.


5 1 vote

Rate Radeon R9 M385 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 24310 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 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.