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

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,350 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $1,499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 806.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 5.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $1,499 MSRP).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 295X2: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 295X2 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 75W instead of 500W, a 425W reduction.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 307mm, a 78mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 8,734).
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Radeon R9 295X2

2014

Why buy it

✅+11% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 8 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
906% HIGHER MSRP
$1,499 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 5.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($1,499 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌566.7% higher power demand at 500W vs 75W.
❌34.1% longer card at 307mm vs 229mm.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon R9 295X2

2014

Why buy it

✅Costs $1,350 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $1,499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 806.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 5.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $1,499 MSRP).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 295X2: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 295X2 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 75W instead of 500W, a 425W reduction.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 307mm, a 78mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Why buy it

✅+11% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 8,734).
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 8 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
906% HIGHER MSRP
$1,499 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 5.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($1,499 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌566.7% higher power demand at 500W vs 75W.
❌34.1% longer card at 307mm vs 229mm.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon R9 295X2 better than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 7,869 vs 8,734 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer Radeon R9 295X2 is the overall package: you are getting FSR upscaling.

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

GeForce GTX 1650 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2019 generation instead of 2014, the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling, and a 12nm 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 R9 295X2 is the smarter buy by a wide margin. Radeon R9 295X2 is about 906.0% more expensive on MSRP at $1,499 MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 11.0% higher G3D Mark. GeForce GTX 1650 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

When does GeForce GTX 1650 make more sense than Radeon R9 295X2?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is still an excellent gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It makes more sense if your priority is newer architecture, lower power draw (75W vs 500W), future-proofing, and staying closer to $149 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon R9 295X2. The trade-off is that Radeon R9 295X2 currently gives you 11.0% higher G3D Mark. GeForce GTX 1650 still holds the G3D-per-dollar lead, so the performance win comes with a real value premium.

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 Benchmark Check

Radeon R9 295X2 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 295X2
1080p
low	94 FPS	135 FPS
medium	83 FPS	115 FPS
high	70 FPS	94 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	57 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	113 FPS
medium	74 FPS	96 FPS
high	60 FPS	70 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	42 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	39 FPS
medium	39 FPS	36 FPS
high	27 FPS	22 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	19 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 295X2

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 295X2
1080p
low	136 FPS	209 FPS
medium	113 FPS	182 FPS
high	94 FPS	152 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	120 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	145 FPS
medium	62 FPS	116 FPS
high	44 FPS	93 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	72 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	66 FPS
medium	27 FPS	55 FPS
high	21 FPS	49 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	41 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 295X2

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 295X2
1080p
low	323 FPS	393 FPS
medium	283 FPS	314 FPS
high	205 FPS	262 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	197 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	295 FPS
medium	202 FPS	236 FPS
high	151 FPS	197 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	147 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	197 FPS
medium	117 FPS	157 FPS
high	79 FPS	131 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	98 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 295X2

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 295X2
1080p
low	261 FPS	295 FPS
medium	211 FPS	257 FPS
high	191 FPS	215 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	170 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	213 FPS
medium	158 FPS	188 FPS
high	135 FPS	150 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	114 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	120 FPS
medium	74 FPS	98 FPS
high	65 FPS	80 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	59 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 295X2

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 295X2

GeForce GTX 1650

The GeForce GTX 1650 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1485 MHz to 1665 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,869 points. Launch price was $149.

Radeon R9 295X2

The Radeon R9 295X2 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 29 2014. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1018 MHz. It has 2816 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 500W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,734 points. Launch price was $1,499.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 295X2's 8,734 — the Radeon R9 295X2 leads by 11%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 295X2 uses GCN 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,816 (Radeon R9 295X2). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.733 TFLOPS ×2 (Radeon R9 295X2). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1018 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 295X2
G3D Mark Score	7,869	8,734+11%
Architecture	Turing	GCN 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	2816 ×2+214%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	5.733 TFLOPS ×2+92%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+64%	1018 MHz
ROPs	32	64 ×2+100%
TMUs	56	176 ×2+214%
L1 Cache	896 KB+27%	704 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 1650 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Radeon R9 295X2 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 295X2
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 295X2 has 8 GB. The Radeon R9 295X2 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 320 GB/s x2 (Radeon R9 295X2) — a 2401.6% advantage for the Radeon R9 295X2. Bus width: 128-bit vs 512-bit x2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 295X2
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	320 GB/s x2+150%
Bus Width	128-bit	512-bit x2+300%
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.0 (Radeon R9 295X2). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 6.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 295X2
DirectX	12	12.0
Vulkan	1.4+27%	1.1
OpenGL	4.6+7%	4.3
Max Displays	3	6+100%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 295X2). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 4.2. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (Radeon R9 295X2).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 295X2
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 2.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 4.2
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 295X2's 500W — a 147.8% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1000W (Radeon R9 295X2). Power connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 307mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 65°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 295X2
TDP	75W-85%	500W
Recommended PSU	300W-70%	1000W
Power Connector	None	2x 8-pin
Length	229mm	307mm
Height	111mm	114mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C	65°C-7%
Perf/Watt	104.9+499%	17.5

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 295X2 launched at $1499. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 90.1% less ($1350 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.8 (Radeon R9 295X2) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 810.3% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).