GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon R9 M395X

Place in the ranking	381	328
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	12.39	23.09
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)	250 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	1250 MHz	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	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
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 M395X 13.51

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 16.77
+24.1%

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 M395X 5194

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 6449
+24.2%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 M395X 7921

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 8564
+8.1%

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	45−50 −24.4%	56 +24.4%
1440p	27−30 −33.3%	36 +33.3%
4K	18−20 −33.3%	24 +33.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −25%	30−33 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −26.9%	30−35 +26.9%
Elden Ring	40−45 −26.8%	50−55 +26.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −22.7%	50−55 +22.7%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −25%	30−33 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +52.9%	17 −52.9%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −42.6%	77 +42.6%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −51.4%	56 +51.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 −85.3%	63 +85.3%
Valorant	50−55 −71.7%	91 +71.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −22.7%	50−55 +22.7%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −25%	30−33 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +100%	13 −100%
Dota 2	45−50 −67.3%	82 +67.3%
Elden Ring	40−45 −26.8%	50−55 +26.8%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −31.4%	67 +31.4%
Fortnite	75−80 −21.1%	90−95 +21.1%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −14.8%	62 +14.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	45−50 −39.6%	67 +39.6%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −2.7%	38 +2.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	95−100 −19.2%	110−120 +19.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 −17.6%	40−45 +17.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 −26.8%	50−55 +26.8%
Valorant	50−55 +26.2%	42 −26.2%
World of Tanks	180−190 −16.1%	200−210 +16.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −22.7%	50−55 +22.7%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −25%	30−33 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +136%	11 −136%
Dota 2	45−50 −116%	106 +116%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −15.7%	55−60 +15.7%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +0%	54 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	95−100 −19.2%	110−120 +19.2%
Valorant	50−55 −26.4%	65−70 +26.4%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	18−20 −36.8%	26 +36.8%
Elden Ring	20−22 −35%	27−30 +35%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −36.8%	26 +36.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 −50%	150−160 +50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −25%	14−16 +25%
World of Tanks	95−100 −22.1%	110−120 +22.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −25.9%	30−35 +25.9%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −16.7%	14−16 +16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −30%	12−14 +30%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −31.3%	40−45 +31.3%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −9.4%	35 +9.4%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −27.6%	35−40 +27.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −29.4%	21−24 +29.4%
Valorant	30−35 −27.3%	40−45 +27.3%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Dota 2	24−27 −4.2%	25 +4.2%
Elden Ring	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 −4.2%	25 +4.2%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −25%	50−55 +25%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −4.2%	25 +4.2%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −33.3%	16−18 +33.3%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Dota 2	24−27 −117%	52 +117%
Far Cry 5	16−18 −23.5%	21−24 +23.5%
Fortnite	14−16 −26.7%	18−20 +26.7%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −16.7%	21 +16.7%
Valorant	14−16 −35.7%	18−20 +35.7%

This is how R9 M395X and GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 24% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 33% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 33% 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 M395X is 136% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 117% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R9 M395X is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 58 tests (92%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	13.51	16.77
Recency	5 May 2015	2 April 2020
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	50 Watt

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q has a 24.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M395X in performance tests.

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