AMD Radeon R9 Nano vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

General info

Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.

Place in our rating
 
Value for money (0-100)
1.30
 
1.96
Architecture
GCN 1.2
 
Turing
GPU code name
Fiji
 
TU117
Market segment
Desktop
 
Desktop
Design
reference
 
no data
Launch date
10 September 2015 (5 years ago)
 
23 April 2019 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)
$649
 
$149
Price now
$941
 
$571

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core 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.

Pipelines / CUDA cores
4096
 
896
Compute units
64
 
no data
Core clock speed
no data
 
1485 MHz
Boost clock
1000 MHz
 
1665 MHz
Number of transistors
8,900 million
 
4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology
28 nm
 
12 nm
Thermal design power (TDP)
175 Watt
 
75 Watt
Texture fill rate
256.0
 
93.24
Floating-point performance
8,192 gflops
 
no data

Compatibility, dimensions and requirements

Information on 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).

Bus support
PCIe 3.0
 
no data
Interface
PCIe 3.0 x16
 
PCIe 3.0 x16
Length
152 mm
 
229 mm
Supplementary power connectors
1x 8-pin
 
None
Bridgeless CrossFire
+
 
-

Memory

Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors don't have dedicated memory and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type
High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)
 
GDDR5
High bandwidth memory (HBM)
+
 
no data
Maximum RAM amount
4 GB
 
4 GB
Memory bus width
4096 Bit
 
128 Bit
Memory clock speed
500 MHz
 
8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth
512 GB/s
 
128.0 GB/s
Shared memory
-
 
-

Video outputs and ports

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. 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
1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
 
1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity
+
 
-
Number of Eyefinity displays
6
 
no data
HDMI
+
 
+
DisplayPort support
+
 
-

Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration
+
 
-
CrossFire
+
 
-
FRTC
+
 
-
FreeSync
+
 
-
HD3D
+
 
-
LiquidVR
+
 
-
PowerTune
+
 
-
TressFX
+
 
-
TrueAudio
+
 
-
ZeroCore
+
 
-
VCE
+
 
-
DDMA audio
+
 
no data

API support

APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.

DirectX
DirectX® 12
 
12 (12_1)
Shader Model
6.3
 
6.5
OpenGL
4.5
 
4.6
OpenCL
2.0
 
1.2
Vulkan
+
 
1.2.131
Mantle
+
 
-
CUDA
-
 
7.5

Benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.

Overall score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. 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 Nano 32.36 +9.4%
GTX 1650 29.57

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 Nano 402499 +7.8%
GTX 1650 373333

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

R9 Nano 81374 +61%
GTX 1650 50549

3DMark Fire Strike Score

R9 Nano 12081 +37.4%
GTX 1650 8795

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 seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 Nano 14362 +56.1%
GTX 1650 9203

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 Nano 17282 +26.7%
GTX 1650 13645

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

R9 Nano 43546
GTX 1650 44694 +2.6%

Passmark

This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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 Nano 8486 +9.4%
GTX 1650 7755

Mining hashrates

Cryptocurrency mining performance of Radeon R9 Nano and GeForce GTX 1650. Usually measured in megahashes per second.

Ethereum / ETH (DaggerHashimoto)
30 Mh/s
 
no data
Zcash / ZEC (Equihash)
295 Sol/s
 
no data

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Advantages of AMD Radeon R9 Nano

9.4% better performance in benchmarks

Wider memory bus (4096 vs 128 bit)

More pipelines (4096 vs 896)

Higher memory bandwidth (512 vs 128 GB/s)

Mantle (an API developed by AMD for 3D graphics acceleration. Discontinued and later superceded by Vulkan)

Vulkan (a contemporary API for graphics acceleration, based on now-discontinued Mantle)

Advantages of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650

Much newer (23 April 2019 vs 10 September 2015)

Cheaper ($571 vs $941)

Finer manufacturing process technology (12 vs 28 nm)

Lower power consumption (75W vs 175W), meaning that the rival with higher TDP might require a better cooler or other thermal solution.

So, which one is the better CPU?

Technical City couldn't decide between AMD Radeon R9 Nano and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. The differences in performance seem too small.

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

Cast your vote

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

AMD Radeon R9 Nano
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
Like
Like

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of video cards with performance more or less close to those reviewed, providing you with more probable options to consider.

User rating

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

Advices and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.