
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon RX 6900 XT
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
- ✅Costs $850 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 97.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 26.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 300W, a 225W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon RX 6900 XT across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 16 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌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.
Radeon RX 6900 XT
2020Why buy it
- ✅193.7% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
- ✅300% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (16 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌570.5% HIGHER MSRP$999 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 26.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($999 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌300% higher power demand at 300W vs 75W.
- ❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon RX 6900 XT
2020Why buy it
- ✅Costs $850 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 97.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 26.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 300W, a 225W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Why buy it
- ✅193.7% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
- ✅300% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (16 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon RX 6900 XT across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 16 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌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.
Trade-offs
- ❌570.5% HIGHER MSRP$999 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 26.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($999 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌300% higher power demand at 300W vs 75W.
- ❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.
Quick Answers
So, is Radeon RX 6900 XT better than GeForce GTX 1650?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is GeForce GTX 1650 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 RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 258 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 235 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 203 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 176 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 242 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 200 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 162 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 146 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 171 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 143 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 107 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 95 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 601 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 500 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 400 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 341 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 397 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 330 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 271 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 221 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 193 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 162 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 135 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 111 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 924 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 767 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 683 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 585 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 714 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 587 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 510 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 432 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 498 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 412 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 353 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 290 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 684 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 565 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 494 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 446 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 563 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 471 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 408 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 360 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 365 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 317 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 290 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 256 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 6900 XT

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 RX 6900 XT
Radeon RX 6900 XT
The Radeon RX 6900 XT is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 28 2020. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1825 MHz to 2250 MHz. It has 5120 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. It features 80 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 26,729 points. Launch price was $999.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon RX 6900 XT's 26,729 — the Radeon RX 6900 XT leads by 239.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX 6900 XT uses RDNA 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5,120 (Radeon RX 6900 XT). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 23.04 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 6900 XT). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2250 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 26,729+240% |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 5120+471% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 23.04 TFLOPS+672% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2250 MHz+35% |
| ROPs | 32 | 128+300% |
| TMUs | 56 | 320+471% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 1 MB+14% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the Radeon RX 6900 XT 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 6900 XT relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon RX 6900 XT has 16 GB. The Radeon RX 6900 XT offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 512 GB/s (Radeon RX 6900 XT) — a 300% advantage for the Radeon RX 6900 XT. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Radeon RX 6900 XT) — the Radeon RX 6900 XT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 512 GB/s+300% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 Ultimate (Radeon RX 6900 XT). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCN 3.0 (Radeon RX 6900 XT). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 3.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,AV1,VP9 (Radeon RX 6900 XT).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCN 3.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | VCN 3.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,AV1,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon RX 6900 XT's 300W — a 120% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 850W (Radeon RX 6900 XT). Power connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2.5 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-75% | 300W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-65% | 850W |
| Power Connector | None | 2x 8-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 120mm |
| Slots | 2-20% | 2.5 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+18% | 89.1 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon RX 6900 XT launched at $999. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 85.1% less ($850 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 26.8 (Radeon RX 6900 XT) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 97% better value. The Radeon RX 6900 XT is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6900 XT |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-85% | $999 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+97% | 26.8 |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 21 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | October 28 2020 |
| Ranking | #323 | #35 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













