
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon R9 M390X
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
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
2019Why buy it
- ✅+102% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $401 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $550 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 645.7% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 7.1 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $550 MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 M390X: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 M390X is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Radeon R9 M390X
2015Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (3,895 vs 7,869).
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌269.1% HIGHER MSRP$550 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 7.1 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($550 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon R9 M390X
2015Why buy it
- ✅+102% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $401 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $550 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 645.7% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 7.1 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $550 MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 M390X: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 M390X is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (3,895 vs 7,869).
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌269.1% HIGHER MSRP$550 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 7.1 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($550 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon R9 M390X?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Radeon R9 M390X still worth buying for gaming in 2026?
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M390X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 81 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 69 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 57 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 37 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 71 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 62 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 29 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 26 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 24 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 16 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 14 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M390X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 91 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 69 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 57 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 40 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 54 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 38 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 29 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 21 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 22 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 16 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 12 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 9 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M390X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 175 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 140 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 117 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 88 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 131 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 105 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 88 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 66 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 70 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 58 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 44 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M390X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 172 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 140 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 117 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 88 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 122 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 102 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 88 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 66 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 72 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 56 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 45 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 30 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 M390X

GeForce GTX 1650
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 M390X
Radeon R9 M390X
The Radeon R9 M390X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 5 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 723 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,895 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 M390X's 3,895 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 102%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 M390X uses GCN 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,048 (Radeon R9 M390X). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.961 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M390X).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M390X |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+102% | 3,895 |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2048+129% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 2.961 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 128+129% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+75% | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 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 M390X relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M390X |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 160 GB/s (Radeon R9 M390X) — a 25% advantage for the Radeon R9 M390X. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 M390X) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M390X |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 160 GB/s+25% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 M390X's 75W — a 0% difference. The Radeon R9 M390X is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon R9 M390X). Power connectors: None vs Mobile.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M390X |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | Mobile |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+102% | 51.9 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 M390X launched at $550. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 72.9% less ($401 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7.1 (Radeon R9 M390X) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 643.7% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M390X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-73% | $550 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+644% | 7.1 |
| Codename | TU117 | Amethyst |
| Release | April 23 2019 | May 5 2015 |
| Ranking | #323 | #504 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













