GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon RX 480
Aggregated performance score
Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 10% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 230 | 253 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 2 |
| Value for money | 11.86 | 19.05 |
| Architecture | Polaris (2016−2019) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 10 Ellesmere | TU117 |
| GCN generation | 4th Gen | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 29 June 2016 (7 years old) | 23 April 2019 (4 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $149 |
| Current price | $174 (0.8x MSRP) | $185 (1.2x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1650 has 61% better value for money than RX 480.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2304 | 896 |
| Compute units | 36 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1120 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1266 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 182.3 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point performance | 5,834 gflops | no data |
Size and 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).
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | 1 | no data |
Memory
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 | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 8000 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 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 (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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | 1 | no data |
| HDMI | 2.0 | + |
| DisplayPort support | 1.4HDR | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | n/a | no data |
| CrossFire | 1 | no data |
| Enduro | n/a | no data |
| FRTC | 1 | no data |
| FreeSync | + | no data |
| HD3D | n/a | no data |
| LiquidVR | 1 | no data |
| PowerTune | + | no data |
| TressFX | 1 | no data |
| TrueAudio | n/a | no data |
| ZeroCore | + | no data |
| UVD | + | no data |
| VCE | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | n/a | no data |
| CUDA | no data | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 10% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 10% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon RX 480 by 13% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 31% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 32% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 43% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 3% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
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 | 78
+11.4%
| 70
−11.4%
|
| 1440p | 54
+42.1%
| 38
−42.1%
|
| 4K | 35
+52.2%
| 23
−52.2%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+12.5%
|
30−35
−12.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 58
+9.4%
|
53
−9.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
−20.5%
|
47
+20.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+19.7%
|
61
−19.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 55−60
−31%
|
76
+31%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+12.5%
|
30−35
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−15.3%
|
68
+15.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
−11.9%
|
66
+11.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100
+11.1%
|
90
−11.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 65−70
−15.2%
|
76
+15.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
−14.6%
|
55
+14.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 69
+32.7%
|
52
−32.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 66
+13.8%
|
58
−13.8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
−30.2%
|
56
+30.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 49
+4.3%
|
47
−4.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+11.4%
|
35
−11.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+37.7%
|
53
−37.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 35
−65.7%
|
58
+65.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+12.5%
|
30−35
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−5.1%
|
62
+5.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
−5.1%
|
62
+5.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 93
+12%
|
83
−12%
|
| Hitman 3 | 65−70
+6.5%
|
62
−6.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
+17.1%
|
41
−17.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 41
+17.1%
|
35
−17.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 34
+21.4%
|
28
−21.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 57
+21.3%
|
47
−21.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 78
+5.4%
|
74
−5.4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
−11.6%
|
48
+11.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35
+40%
|
25
−40%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+200%
|
13
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+43.1%
|
51
−43.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+12.5%
|
30−35
−12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+1.7%
|
58
−1.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 69
+21.1%
|
57
−21.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+18.5%
|
65
−18.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+4.8%
|
42
−4.8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+105%
|
21
−105%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
−5.9%
|
36
+5.9%
|
| Hitman 3 | 35−40
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−33
+15.4%
|
26
−15.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+10%
|
20
−10%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21
+23.5%
|
17
−23.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18
−33.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+61.5%
|
13
−61.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+28.2%
|
39
−28.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−2.6%
|
39
+2.6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50
+22%
|
41
−22%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+13%
|
21−24
−13%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14
−14.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20
+17.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+10.5%
|
19
−10.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+75%
|
8
−75%
|
| Metro Exodus | 15
+25%
|
12
−25%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18
+38.5%
|
13
−38.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27
+3.8%
|
26
−3.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 17
+30.8%
|
13
−30.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+140%
|
5
−140%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21
−23.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−5.6%
|
19
+5.6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 26
+23.8%
|
21
−23.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30
−3.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11
+25%
|
8
−25%
|
This is how RX 480 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- RX 480 is 11.4% faster than GTX 1650
1440p resolution:
- RX 480 is 42.1% faster than GTX 1650
4K resolution:
- RX 480 is 52.2% faster than GTX 1650
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 480 is 200% faster than the GTX 1650.
- in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 65.7% faster than the RX 480.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 480 is ahead in 50 tests (74%)
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 15 tests (22%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (4%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 22.28 | 20.34 |
| Recency | 29 June 2016 | 23 April 2019 |
| Cost | $229 | $149 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 480 and GeForce GTX 1650.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
