GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon X1300
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 254 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 19.01 |
| Architecture | R500 (2005−2007) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | RV515 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 December 2005 (18 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
| Current price | $67 | $185 (1.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
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 | no data | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 107 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 1.800 | 93.24 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| Memory type | DDR | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 8 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | no data | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
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%
GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon X1300 by 13481% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 December 2005 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 12 nm |
We couldn't decide between Radeon X1300 and GeForce GTX 1650. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
