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 $10 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $159 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
❌41.5% higher power demand at 75W vs 53W.
❌33.1% longer card at 229mm vs 172mm.

Radeon RX 6400

2022

Why buy it

✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 53W instead of 75W, a 22W reduction.
✅Measures 172mm instead of 229mm, a 57mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌
6.7% HIGHER MSRP
$159 MSRPvs$149 MSRP

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon RX 6400

2022

Why buy it

✅Costs $10 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $159 MSRP).

Why buy it

✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 53W instead of 75W, a 22W reduction.
✅Measures 172mm instead of 229mm, a 57mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
❌41.5% higher power demand at 75W vs 53W.
❌33.1% longer card at 229mm vs 172mm.

Trade-offs

❌
6.7% HIGHER MSRP
$159 MSRPvs$149 MSRP

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon RX 6400?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 7,869 vs 7,728 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 card with no meaningful modern upscaling stack, while Radeon RX 6400 is a 2022 model from an older generation with FSR 3 + AFMF. 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 6400 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2022 generation instead of 2019, 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 6nm process instead of 12nm. 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?

GeForce GTX 1650 can still make sense if you find it at the right price, especially around $149 MSRP. GeForce GTX 1650 is still the smarter buy for most people, though, because the raw performance is close while the overall package is cleaner. GeForce GTX 1650 is about $10 cheaper on MSRP at $149 MSRP versus $159 MSRP, and you are getting 1.8% higher G3D Mark. Radeon RX 6400 is the newer 2022 card, so it still has a real case if you care more about newer architecture, lower power draw (53W vs 75W), and future-proofing than about squeezing out the strongest gaming value today.

When does Radeon RX 6400 make more sense than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes. Radeon RX 6400 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 (53W vs 75W), future-proofing, and staying closer to $159 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of GeForce GTX 1650. The trade-off is that GeForce GTX 1650 currently gives you 1.8% higher G3D Mark. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 8.7%.

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 RX 6400 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 6400
1080p
low	94 FPS	129 FPS
medium	83 FPS	115 FPS
high	70 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	73 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	118 FPS
medium	74 FPS	99 FPS
high	60 FPS	83 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	62 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	49 FPS
medium	39 FPS	46 FPS
high	27 FPS	34 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	30 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX 6400

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 6400
1080p
low	136 FPS	165 FPS
medium	113 FPS	129 FPS
high	94 FPS	96 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	62 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	107 FPS
medium	62 FPS	82 FPS
high	44 FPS	61 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	42 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	54 FPS
medium	27 FPS	42 FPS
high	21 FPS	33 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	20 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX 6400

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 6400
1080p
low	323 FPS	348 FPS
medium	283 FPS	278 FPS
high	205 FPS	232 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	174 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	261 FPS
medium	202 FPS	209 FPS
high	151 FPS	174 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	130 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	154 FPS
medium	117 FPS	139 FPS
high	79 FPS	101 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	70 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX 6400

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 6400
1080p
low	261 FPS	270 FPS
medium	211 FPS	203 FPS
high	191 FPS	182 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	151 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	204 FPS
medium	158 FPS	149 FPS
high	135 FPS	133 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	107 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	107 FPS
medium	74 FPS	80 FPS
high	65 FPS	70 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	54 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX 6400

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 6400

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 RX 6400

The Radeon RX 6400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 19 2022. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1923 MHz to 2321 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 53W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,728 points. Launch price was $159.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 and the Radeon RX 6400 reaches 7,728 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX 6400 uses RDNA 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 768 (Radeon RX 6400). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3.565 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 6400). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2321 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 6400
G3D Mark Score	7,869+2%	7,728
Architecture	Turing	RDNA 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	6 nm
Shading Units	896+17%	768
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	3.565 TFLOPS+19%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz	2321 MHz+39%
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	56+17%	48
L1 Cache	896 KB+250%	256 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

A critical advantage for the Radeon RX 6400 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 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.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 RX 6400 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 6400
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 64-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 6400
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	128 GB/s
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (Radeon RX 6400). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 6400
DirectX	12	12.2+2%
Vulkan	1.4+8%	1.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3+50%	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs None (Radeon RX 6400). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 3.0 (Limited). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264 (Decode),HEVC (Decode) (Radeon RX 6400).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 6400
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	None
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	VCN 3.0 (Limited)
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264 (Decode),HEVC (Decode)

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon RX 6400's 53W — a 34.4% difference. The Radeon RX 6400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon RX 6400). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 229mm vs 172mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 6400
TDP	75W	53W-29%
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	None
Length	229mm	172mm
Height	111mm	112mm
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	70°C-7%	75°C
Perf/Watt	104.9	145.8+39%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon RX 6400 launched at $159. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 6.3% less ($10 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 48.6 (Radeon RX 6400) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 8.6% better value. The Radeon RX 6400 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2019).