GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon 880M

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

✅64.8% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅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 880M

2024

Why buy it

✅More future proof: RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) on 4nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 15W instead of 75W, a 60W reduction.
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) on 4nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon 880M

2024

Why buy it

✅64.8% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅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 3.5 (2024−2025) on 4nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 15W instead of 75W, a 60W reduction.
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) 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 average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌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 880M?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is clearly the better overall GPU here. GeForce GTX 1650 averages 64.8% more FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. You are also looking at 7,869 vs 7,729 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 card with no meaningful modern upscaling stack, while Radeon 880M is a 2024 model from an older generation with FSR upscaling. 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 880M is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2024 generation instead of 2019, better upscaling support with FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 (2025) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack, and a 4nm 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 is the smarter buy today, but it is not as lopsided as a simple winner label makes it sound. GeForce GTX 1650 is priced in an unclear MSRP range at $149 MSRP versus an unclear MSRP, and you are getting 64.8% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and 1.8% higher G3D Mark. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 100+%. Radeon 880M is the newer 2024 card, so it still has a real case if you care more about newer architecture, lower power draw (15W vs 75W), and future-proofing than about squeezing out the strongest gaming value today.

When does Radeon 880M make more sense than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes. Radeon 880M 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 (15W vs 75W), future-proofing, and staying closer to an unclear 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 and 64.8% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 100+%.

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 880M Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon 880M
1080p
low	94 FPS	46 FPS
medium	83 FPS	30 FPS
high	70 FPS	22 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

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon 880M

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon 880M
1080p
low	136 FPS	109 FPS
medium	113 FPS	76 FPS
high	94 FPS	51 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	36 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	78 FPS
medium	62 FPS	50 FPS
high	44 FPS	36 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	26 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	33 FPS
medium	27 FPS	24 FPS
high	21 FPS	19 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	13 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon 880M

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon 880M
1080p
low	323 FPS	310 FPS
medium	283 FPS	272 FPS
high	205 FPS	205 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	168 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	227 FPS
medium	202 FPS	205 FPS
high	151 FPS	157 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	125 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	135 FPS
medium	117 FPS	121 FPS
high	79 FPS	82 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	57 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon 880M

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon 880M
1080p
low	261 FPS	159 FPS
medium	211 FPS	125 FPS
high	191 FPS	105 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	82 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	112 FPS
medium	158 FPS	90 FPS
high	135 FPS	77 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	60 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	66 FPS
medium	74 FPS	53 FPS
high	65 FPS	42 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	31 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon 880M

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon 880M

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 880M

The Radeon 880M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in July 15 2024. It features the RDNA 3.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 400 MHz to 2900 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,729 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 and the Radeon 880M reaches 7,729 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 880M uses RDNA 3.5, both on 12 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 768 (Radeon 880M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4.454 TFLOPS (Radeon 880M). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2900 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon 880M
G3D Mark Score	7,869+2%	7,729
Architecture	Turing	RDNA 3.5
Process Node	12 nm	4 nm
Shading Units	896+17%	768
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	4.454 TFLOPS+49%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz	2900 MHz+74%
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	56+17%	48
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 880M relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon 880M
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 880M) — the Radeon 880M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon 880M
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 12.2 (Radeon 880M). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon 880M
DirectX	12	12.2+2%
Vulkan	1.4	1.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCN 4.5 (Radeon 880M). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 4.5. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Radeon 880M).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon 880M
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCN 4.5
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	VCN 4.5
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon 880M's 15W — a 133.3% difference. The Radeon 880M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon 880M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon 880M
TDP	75W	15W-80%
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	0mm
Height	111mm	0mm
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C	—
Perf/Watt	104.9	515.3+391%