GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon R9 M390X

Place in the ranking	472	327
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	8.65	23.14
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Amethyst	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	5 May 2015 (9 years ago)	2 April 2020 (4 years ago)

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	2048	1024
Core clock speed	723 MHz	1035 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1200 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	92.54	76.80
Floating-point processing power	2.961 TFLOPS	2.458 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	128	64

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	medium sized
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160.0 GB/s	160.0 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	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-

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	6.3	6.5
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	Not Listed	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.140
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 M390X 9.32

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 16.62
+78.3%

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 M390X 3597

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 6413
+78.3%

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 M390X 9448

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 11538
+22.1%

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	30−35 −90%	57 +90%
1440p	18−20 −88.9%	34 +88.9%
4K	12−14 −83.3%	22 +83.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

14−16

−73.3%

24−27
+73.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −123%	49 +123%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 −171%	38 +171%
Battlefield 5	27−30 −86.2%	50−55 +86.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 −137%	45 +137%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −73.3%	24−27 +73.3%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −85.7%	35−40 +85.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 −73.1%	45−50 +73.1%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −71%	100−110 +71%
Hitman 3	18−20 −150%	45 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 −59.6%	80−85 +59.6%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −197%	86 +197%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −142%	63 +142%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 −74.2%	50−55 +74.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −231%	202 +231%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 −72.7%	35−40 +72.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 −71.4%	24 +71.4%
Battlefield 5	27−30 −86.2%	50−55 +86.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 −78.9%	34 +78.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −73.3%	24−27 +73.3%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −85.7%	35−40 +85.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 −73.1%	45−50 +73.1%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −71%	100−110 +71%
Hitman 3	18−20 −139%	43 +139%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 −59.6%	80−85 +59.6%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −128%	66 +128%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −76.9%	46 +76.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 −100%	62 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −50%	35−40 +50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −216%	193 +216%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +15.8%	19 −15.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +16.7%	12 −16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 −15.8%	22 +15.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −73.3%	24−27 +73.3%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −85.7%	35−40 +85.7%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −71%	100−110 +71%
Hitman 3	18−20 −111%	38 +111%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 −9.6%	57 +9.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 −74.2%	54 +74.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −23.1%	32 +23.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +281%	16 −281%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

−76.9%

46
+76.9%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 −77.8%	30−35 +77.8%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 −78.6%	24−27 +78.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −88.9%	16−18 +88.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −140%	12 +140%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −100%	18−20 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −125%	9−10 +125%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −72.7%	18−20 +72.7%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 −123%	85−90 +123%
Hitman 3	12−14 −108%	25 +108%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −116%	41 +116%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −218%	35 +218%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −100%	18−20 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 −120%	130 +120%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

−80%

27−30
+80%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 −77.8%	16−18 +77.8%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −71.4%	12−14 +71.4%
Hitman 3	5−6 −180%	14 +180%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 −124%	85−90 +124%
Metro Exodus	7−8 −143%	16−18 +143%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −186%	20 +186%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −25%	5 +25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −125%	9−10 +125%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −80%	9−10 +80%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 −109%	21−24 +109%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −250%	21 +250%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

−66.7%

14−16
+66.7%

This is how R9 M390X and GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 90% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 89% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 83% faster in 4K

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M390X is 281% faster.
in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 250% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R9 M390X is ahead in 3 tests (4%)
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 69 tests (96%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.32	16.62
Recency	5 May 2015	2 April 2020
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	50 Watt

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q has a 78.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M390X in performance tests.

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