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

✅+246.8% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 130.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 22.9 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $99 MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R7 250X: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R7 250X 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 R7 250X

2014

Why buy it

✅Costs $50 less on MSRP ($99 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
✅Measures 210mm instead of 229mm, a 19mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (2,269 vs 7,869).
❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 22.9 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($99 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon R7 250X

2014

Why buy it

✅+246.8% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 130.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 22.9 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $99 MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R7 250X: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R7 250X is already obsolete for modern gaming.

Why buy it

✅Costs $50 less on MSRP ($99 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
✅Measures 210mm instead of 229mm, a 19mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

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 (2,269 vs 7,869).
❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 22.9 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($99 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon R7 250X?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 7,869 vs 2,269 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 card with no meaningful modern upscaling stack, while Radeon R7 250X is a 2014 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?

GeForce GTX 1650 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2019 generation instead of 2014, 246.8% more raw performance headroom, more VRAM at 4 GB instead of 2 GB, and the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling. That leaves it with more room for heavier textures, tougher ray tracing loads, and higher-end 1440p or 4K gaming over the next few years.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

GeForce GTX 1650 is the smarter buy by a wide margin. GeForce GTX 1650 is about 50.5% more expensive on MSRP at $149 MSRP versus $99 MSRP, and you are getting 246.8% higher G3D Mark. Radeon R7 250X really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

Is Radeon R7 250X still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

No, not for a fresh gaming build. Radeon R7 250X is 2014 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM, 2,269 in G3D Mark, and FSR upscaling. That is simply too far behind to be an easy modern recommendation.

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 R7 250X Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250X
1080p
low	94 FPS	22 FPS
medium	83 FPS	13 FPS
high	70 FPS	8 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	4 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	10 FPS
medium	74 FPS	5 FPS
high	60 FPS	3 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	1 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	4 FPS
medium	39 FPS	2 FPS
high	27 FPS	1 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	1 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R7 250X

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250X
1080p
low	136 FPS	51 FPS
medium	113 FPS	27 FPS
high	94 FPS	19 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	13 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	23 FPS
medium	62 FPS	13 FPS
high	44 FPS	8 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	6 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	7 FPS
medium	27 FPS	4 FPS
high	21 FPS	3 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	2 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R7 250X

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250X
1080p
low	323 FPS	102 FPS
medium	283 FPS	82 FPS
high	205 FPS	68 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	51 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	77 FPS
medium	202 FPS	61 FPS
high	151 FPS	51 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	38 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	51 FPS
medium	117 FPS	41 FPS
high	79 FPS	34 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	26 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R7 250X

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250X
1080p
low	261 FPS	102 FPS
medium	211 FPS	82 FPS
high	191 FPS	64 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	50 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	60 FPS
medium	158 FPS	47 FPS
high	135 FPS	38 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	28 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	34 FPS
medium	74 FPS	25 FPS
high	65 FPS	20 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	14 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R7 250X

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R7 250X

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 R7 250X

The Radeon R7 250X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in February 13 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 80W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,269 points. Launch price was $99.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R7 250X's 2,269 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 246.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R7 250X uses GCN 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 640 (Radeon R7 250X). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.216 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 250X). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1000 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250X
G3D Mark Score	7,869+247%	2,269
Architecture	Turing	GCN 1.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896+40%	640
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+145%	1.216 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+67%	1000 MHz
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	56+40%	40
L1 Cache	896 KB+460%	160 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 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 R7 250X relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250X
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)

The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R7 250X has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 72 GB/s (Radeon R7 250X) — a 77.8% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1650. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.25 MB (Radeon R7 250X) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250X
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s+78%	72 GB/s
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (FL 11_1) (Radeon R7 250X). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250X
DirectX	12	12 (FL 11_1)
Vulkan	1.4+17%	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3+50%	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon R7 250X). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 4.2. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2 (Radeon R7 250X).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250X
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 1.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 4.2
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R7 250X's 80W — a 6.5% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 400W (Radeon R7 250X). Power connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 210mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 70°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R7 250X
TDP	75W-6%	80W
Recommended PSU	300W-25%	400W
Power Connector	None	1x 6-pin
Length	229mm	210mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C	70°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+269%	28.4

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R7 250X launched at $99. The Radeon R7 250X costs 33.6% less ($50 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 22.9 (Radeon R7 250X) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 130.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).