G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti

2012

Why buy it

✅Costs $349 less on MSRP ($150 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 226.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 50.2 vs 15.3 G3D/$ ($150 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Draws 50W instead of 180W, a 130W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
❌Poor future-proofing: 2012-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.

Radeon RX 780

2024

Why buy it

✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌
232.7% HIGHER MSRP
$499 MSRPvs$150 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 15.3 vs 50.2 G3D/$ ($499 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
❌260% higher power demand at 180W vs 50W.

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti

2012

Radeon RX 780

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $349 less on MSRP ($150 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 226.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 50.2 vs 15.3 G3D/$ ($150 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Draws 50W instead of 180W, a 130W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
❌Poor future-proofing: 2012-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.

Trade-offs

❌
232.7% HIGHER MSRP
$499 MSRPvs$150 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 15.3 vs 50.2 G3D/$ ($499 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
❌260% higher power demand at 180W vs 50W.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon RX 780 better than GeForce GTX 1650 Ti?

Yes. Radeon RX 780 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 7,658 vs 7,525 in G3D Mark. On top of that, Radeon RX 780 is a 2024 card with FSR 3 + AFMF, while GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is a 2012 model from an older generation with no meaningful modern upscaling stack. So this is not really a tight same-tier comparison. It is more a modern card against an older, weaker alternative.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Radeon RX 780 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2024 generation instead of 2012, better upscaling support with FSR 3 (2023) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack and better frame-generation support with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack, and a 5nm process instead of 28nm. That broader feature stack should age better as more games lean on modern upscaling and frame-generation support.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

Radeon RX 780 is the smarter buy by a wide margin. Radeon RX 780 is about 232.7% more expensive on MSRP at $499 MSRP versus $150 MSRP, and you are getting 1.8% higher G3D Mark. GeForce GTX 1650 Ti really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

Is GeForce GTX 1650 Ti still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

No, not for a fresh gaming build. GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is 2012 hardware with 4 GB of VRAM, 7,525 in G3D Mark, and no meaningful modern upscaling stack. That is simply too far behind to be an easy modern recommendation.

Games Benchmarks

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Benchmark Check

Radeon RX 780 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon RX 780
1080p
low	45 FPS	159 FPS
medium	31 FPS	148 FPS
high	22 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	11 FPS	95 FPS
1440p
low	36 FPS	138 FPS
medium	22 FPS	118 FPS
high	12 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	6 FPS	75 FPS
4K
low	11 FPS	66 FPS
medium	8 FPS	57 FPS
high	4 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	3 FPS	41 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Open Radeon RX 780

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon RX 780
1080p
low	99 FPS	345 FPS
medium	62 FPS	276 FPS
high	42 FPS	230 FPS
ultra	30 FPS	172 FPS
1440p
low	69 FPS	258 FPS
medium	35 FPS	207 FPS
high	25 FPS	172 FPS
ultra	20 FPS	129 FPS
4K
low	32 FPS	163 FPS
medium	18 FPS	133 FPS
high	14 FPS	113 FPS
ultra	11 FPS	86 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Open Radeon RX 780

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon RX 780
1080p
low	339 FPS	345 FPS
medium	271 FPS	276 FPS
high	226 FPS	230 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	172 FPS
1440p
low	254 FPS	258 FPS
medium	203 FPS	207 FPS
high	169 FPS	172 FPS
ultra	127 FPS	129 FPS
4K
low	169 FPS	172 FPS
medium	135 FPS	138 FPS
high	113 FPS	115 FPS
ultra	85 FPS	86 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Open Radeon RX 780

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon RX 780
1080p
low	157 FPS	345 FPS
medium	118 FPS	276 FPS
high	95 FPS	230 FPS
ultra	67 FPS	172 FPS
1440p
low	90 FPS	258 FPS
medium	68 FPS	207 FPS
high	58 FPS	172 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	129 FPS
4K
low	48 FPS	163 FPS
medium	34 FPS	138 FPS
high	29 FPS	115 FPS
ultra	19 FPS	86 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Open Radeon RX 780

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and Radeon RX 780

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 9 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 928 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,525 points. Launch price was $149.

Radeon RX 780

The Radeon RX 780 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in September 11 2024. It features the RDNA 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1295 MHz to 2335 MHz. It has 3840 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 180W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 60 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,658 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti scores 7,525 and the Radeon RX 780 reaches 7,658 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is built on Kepler while the Radeon RX 780 uses RDNA 3.0, both on 28 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 768 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 3,840 (Radeon RX 780). Raw compute: 1.425 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 35.87 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 780).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon RX 780
G3D Mark Score	7,525	7,658+2%
Architecture	Kepler	RDNA 3.0
Process Node	28 nm	5 nm
Shading Units	768	3840+400%
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.425 TFLOPS	35.87 TFLOPS+2417%
ROPs	16	96+500%
TMUs	64	240+275%
L1 Cache	64 KB	768 KB+1100%
L2 Cache	0.25 MB	4 MB+1500%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

A critical advantage for the Radeon RX 780 is support for FSR Frame Generation + AFMF. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Radeon RX 780 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon RX 780
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR 3
Frame Generation	Not Supported	FSR Frame Generation + AFMF
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs System. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 4 MB (Radeon RX 780) — the Radeon RX 780 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon RX 780
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR6	Shared
Memory Bandwidth	192 GB/s	System
Bus Width	128-bit	System
L2 Cache	0.25 MB	4 MB+1500%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 12 (12_2) (Radeon RX 780). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon RX 780
DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_2)
Vulkan	1.3	1.4+8%
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 6 (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs RDNA 3 Dual Media Engine (Radeon RX 780). Decoder: NVDEC 4 vs VCN 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Radeon RX 780).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon RX 780
Encoder	NVENC 6 (Volta)	RDNA 3 Dual Media Engine
Decoder	NVDEC 4	VCN 4.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1	H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti draws 50W versus the Radeon RX 780's 180W — a 113% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 0W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 350W (Radeon RX 780). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 85°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon RX 780
TDP	50W-72%	180W
Recommended PSU	0W-100%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	0mm	—
Height	0mm	—
Slots	0	0
Temp (Load)	75-12%	85°C
Perf/Watt	150.5+254%	42.5

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti launched at $150 MSRP, while the Radeon RX 780 launched at $499. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti costs 69.9% less ($349 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 50.2 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 15.3 (Radeon RX 780) — the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers 228.1% better value. The Radeon RX 780 is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2012).