GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R9 M390

Place in the ranking	457	271
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	38.40
Power efficiency	no data	18.79
Architecture	GCN (2012−2015)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Pitcairn	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	9 June 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 cores	1024	896
Core clock speed	no data	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	5000 Million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	93.24
Floating-point processing power	no data	2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	32
TMUs	no data	56

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	large	no data
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	no data	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	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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 data	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 compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	no data	6.5
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	Not Listed	1.2
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 M390 9.91

GTX 1650 20.48
+107%

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.

R9 M390 6819

GTX 1650 13645
+100%

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	44 −56.8%	69 +56.8%
1440p	18−20 −122%	40 +122%
4K	21 −9.5%	23 +9.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.16
1440p	no data	3.73
4K	no data	6.48

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −106%	35−40 +106%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 −116%	40−45 +116%
Elden Ring	27−30 −132%	65−70 +132%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −106%	66 +106%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −106%	35−40 +106%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +11.8%	17 −11.8%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −141%	94 +141%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −144%	66 +144%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −196%	77 +196%
Valorant	35−40 −130%	85 +130%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −134%	75 +134%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −106%	35−40 +106%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +35.7%	14 −35.7%
Dota 2	22 −273%	82 +273%
Elden Ring	27−30 −132%	65−70 +132%
Far Cry 5	40−45 −120%	90 +120%
Fortnite	55−60 −41.4%	82 +41.4%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −89.7%	74 +89.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	34 −121%	75 +121%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −63%	44 +63%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 −77.9%	130−140 +77.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −7.7%	28 +7.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	33 −93.9%	60−65 +93.9%
Valorant	35−40 −24.3%	46 +24.3%
World of Tanks	140−150 −64.3%	230−240 +64.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −71.9%	55 +71.9%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 −106%	35−40 +106%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +58.3%	12 −58.3%
Dota 2	35−40 −163%	92 +163%
Far Cry 5	40−45 −65.9%	65−70 +65.9%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −59%	62 +59%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 +26.2%	61 −26.2%
Valorant	35−40 −89.2%	70 +89.2%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	12−14 −167%	30−35 +167%
Elden Ring	14−16 −143%	30−35 +143%
Grand Theft Auto V	12−14 −154%	30−35 +154%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 −266%	170−180 +266%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −113%	17 +113%
World of Tanks	70−75 −95.8%	130−140 +95.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −100%	38 +100%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −70%	16−18 +70%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +0%	7 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −167%	55−60 +167%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −105%	45 +105%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −116%	41 +116%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −133%	27−30 +133%
Valorant	24−27 −60%	40 +60%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	4−5 −325%	16−18 +325%
Dota 2	20−22 −45%	29 +45%
Elden Ring	6−7 −150%	14−16 +150%
Grand Theft Auto V	20−22 −45%	29 +45%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −140%	12 +140%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 −114%	60−65 +114%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −117%	12−14 +117%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 −45%	29 +45%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 −100%	18 +100%
Counter-Strike 2	4−5 −325%	16−18 +325%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3 +0%
Dota 2	20−22 −195%	59 +195%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −117%	24−27 +117%
Fortnite	10−11 −150%	24−27 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −117%	26 +117%
Valorant	10−11 −110%	21 +110%

This is how R9 M390 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 57% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 122% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 10% faster in 4K

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

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M390 is 58% faster.
in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 325% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R9 M390 is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
GTX 1650 is ahead in 57 tests (90%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.91	20.48
Recency	9 June 2015	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm

GTX 1650 has a 106.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M390 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M390 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.