
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon 760M
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
- ✅+44.4% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌400% higher power demand at 75W vs 15W.
Radeon 760M
2024Why buy it
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 4nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅Draws 15W instead of 75W, a 60W reduction.
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 4nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (5,449 vs 7,869).
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon 760M
2024Why buy it
- ✅+44.4% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
Why buy it
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 4nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅Draws 15W instead of 75W, a 60W reduction.
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 4nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌400% higher power demand at 75W vs 15W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (5,449 vs 7,869).
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon 760M?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
When does Radeon 760M make more sense than GeForce GTX 1650?
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 760M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 46 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 29 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 21 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 12 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 32 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 19 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 11 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 6 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 12 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 8 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 5 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 3 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 760M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 91 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 64 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 44 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 30 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 58 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 38 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 29 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 21 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 30 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 21 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 17 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 11 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 760M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 245 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 196 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 163 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 123 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 184 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 147 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 123 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 92 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 123 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 98 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 77 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 53 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 760M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 154 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 120 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 103 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 81 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 109 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 87 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 74 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 58 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 65 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 52 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 42 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 30 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon 760M

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 760M
Radeon 760M
The Radeon 760M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 31 2024. It features the RDNA 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 800 MHz to 2599 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 8 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,449 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon 760M's 5,449 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 44.4%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon 760M uses RDNA 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 512 (Radeon 760M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.323 TFLOPS (Radeon 760M). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2599 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 760M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+44% | 5,449 |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 3.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+75% | 512 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 5.323 TFLOPS+78% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2599 MHz+56% |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+75% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+600% | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
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 760M relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 760M |
|---|---|---|
| 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 video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs System. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Radeon 760M) — the Radeon 760M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 760M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | Shared |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | System |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | System |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (12_2) (Radeon 760M). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 760M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_2) |
| 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 4.0 (Radeon 760M). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,H.265,AV1,VP9 (Radeon 760M).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 760M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCN 4.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | VCN 4.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,H.265,AV1,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon 760M's 15W — a 133.3% difference. The Radeon 760M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon 760M). Power connectors: None vs None. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 760M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 15W-80% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | None |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 363.3+246% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon 760M is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon 760M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | — |
| Codename | TU117 | Phoenix |
| Release | April 23 2019 | January 31 2024 |
| Ranking | #323 | #421 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













