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 $250 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $399 MSRP).
✅Delivers 157.5% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 20.5 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $399 MSRP).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 290: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 290 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 75W instead of 275W, a 200W reduction.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 275mm, a 46mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 290 across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Radeon R9 290

2013

Why buy it

✅10.0% more average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
167.8% HIGHER MSRP
$399 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 20.5 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($399 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌266.7% higher power demand at 275W vs 75W.
❌20.1% longer card at 275mm vs 229mm.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon R9 290

2013

Why buy it

✅Costs $250 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $399 MSRP).
✅Delivers 157.5% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 20.5 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $399 MSRP).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 290: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 290 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 75W instead of 275W, a 200W reduction.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 275mm, a 46mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Why buy it

✅10.0% more average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon R9 290 across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2013-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
167.8% HIGHER MSRP
$399 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 20.5 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($399 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌266.7% higher power demand at 275W vs 75W.
❌20.1% longer card at 275mm vs 229mm.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon R9 290 better than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. Radeon R9 290 averages 10.0% more FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 7,869 vs 8,184 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer Radeon R9 290 is the overall package: you are getting FSR upscaling.

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 2013, the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling, and a 12nm process instead of 28nm. 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?

Radeon R9 290 is the smarter buy by a wide margin. Radeon R9 290 is about 167.8% more expensive on MSRP at $399 MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 10.0% more estimated average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data and 4.0% higher G3D Mark. GeForce GTX 1650 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

When does GeForce GTX 1650 make more sense than Radeon R9 290?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 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 (75W vs 275W), future-proofing, and staying closer to $149 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon R9 290. The trade-off is that Radeon R9 290 currently gives you 4.0% higher G3D Mark and 10.0% more estimated average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data. GeForce GTX 1650 still holds the G3D-per-dollar lead, so the performance win comes with a real value premium.

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 R9 290 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290
1080p
low	94 FPS	83 FPS
medium	83 FPS	71 FPS
high	70 FPS	59 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	39 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	72 FPS
medium	74 FPS	64 FPS
high	60 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	30 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	26 FPS
medium	39 FPS	25 FPS
high	27 FPS	17 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	14 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 290

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290
1080p
low	136 FPS	185 FPS
medium	113 FPS	156 FPS
high	94 FPS	129 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	100 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	132 FPS
medium	62 FPS	103 FPS
high	44 FPS	83 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	64 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	60 FPS
medium	27 FPS	49 FPS
high	21 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	36 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 290

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290
1080p
low	323 FPS	368 FPS
medium	283 FPS	295 FPS
high	205 FPS	246 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	184 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	276 FPS
medium	202 FPS	221 FPS
high	151 FPS	184 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	138 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	184 FPS
medium	117 FPS	147 FPS
high	79 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	92 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 290

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290
1080p
low	261 FPS	152 FPS
medium	211 FPS	123 FPS
high	191 FPS	105 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	87 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	110 FPS
medium	158 FPS	90 FPS
high	135 FPS	78 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	62 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	64 FPS
medium	74 FPS	49 FPS
high	65 FPS	39 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	28 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon R9 290

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 290

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 R9 290

The Radeon R9 290 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 5 2013. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 947 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 275W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,184 points. Launch price was $399.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 and the Radeon R9 290 reaches 8,184 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 290 uses GCN 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,560 (Radeon R9 290). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4.849 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 290).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290
G3D Mark Score	7,869	8,184+4%
Architecture	Turing	GCN 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	2560+186%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	4.849 TFLOPS+63%
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	160+186%
L1 Cache	896 KB+40%	640 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 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 R9 290 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290
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 GDDR5. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 320 GB/s (Radeon R9 290) — a 150% advantage for the Radeon R9 290. Bus width: 128-bit vs 512-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	320 GB/s+150%
Bus Width	128-bit	512-bit+300%
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.0 (Radeon R9 290). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 6.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290
DirectX	12	12.0
Vulkan	1.4+17%	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	6+100%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 290). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 4.2. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (Radeon R9 290).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 2.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 4.2
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 290's 275W — a 114.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 750W (Radeon R9 290). Power connectors: None vs 6-pin + 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 275mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 95°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon R9 290
TDP	75W-73%	275W
Recommended PSU	300W-60%	750W
Power Connector	None	6-pin + 8-pin
Length	229mm	275mm
Height	111mm	109mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C-26%	95°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+252%	29.8

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 290 launched at $399. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 62.7% less ($250 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 20.5 (Radeon R9 290) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 157.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).