
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon R9 Fury
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 $400 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 204.5% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 17.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 Fury: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 Fury is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 275W, a 200W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 9,521).
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌17.4% longer card at 229mm vs 195mm.
Radeon R9 Fury
2015Why buy it
- ✅+21% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Measures 195mm instead of 229mm, a 34mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌268.5% HIGHER MSRP$549 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 17.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($549 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌266.7% higher power demand at 275W vs 75W.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon R9 Fury
2015Why buy it
- ✅Costs $400 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 204.5% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 17.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $549 MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 Fury: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 Fury is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 275W, a 200W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅+21% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Measures 195mm instead of 229mm, a 34mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 9,521).
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌17.4% longer card at 229mm vs 195mm.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌268.5% HIGHER MSRP$549 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 17.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($549 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌266.7% higher power demand at 275W vs 75W.
Quick Answers
So, is Radeon R9 Fury 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?
When does GeForce GTX 1650 make more sense than Radeon R9 Fury?
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 R9 Fury |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 117 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 104 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 85 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 52 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 98 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 86 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 63 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 38 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 34 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 31 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 23 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 20 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Fury |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 261 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 219 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 173 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 143 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 186 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 151 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 125 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 98 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 101 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 81 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 65 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 49 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Fury |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 428 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 343 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 286 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 214 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 321 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 257 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 214 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 161 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 214 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 171 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 143 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 107 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Fury |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 197 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 164 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 148 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 117 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 137 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 118 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 107 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 85 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 82 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 68 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 56 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 42 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 Fury

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 R9 Fury
Radeon R9 Fury
The Radeon R9 Fury is manufactured by AMD. It was released in July 10 2015. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 3584 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 275W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 9,521 points. Launch price was $549.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 Fury's 9,521 — the Radeon R9 Fury leads by 21%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 Fury uses GCN 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3,584 (Radeon R9 Fury). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7.168 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 Fury). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1000 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Fury |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 9,521+21% |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 3584+300% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 7.168 TFLOPS+140% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+67% | 1000 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 224+300% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | 896 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 R9 Fury relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Fury |
|---|---|---|
| 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. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 512 GB/s (Radeon R9 Fury) — a 300% advantage for the Radeon R9 Fury. Bus width: 128-bit vs 4096-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Radeon R9 Fury) — the Radeon R9 Fury has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Fury |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | HBM |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 512 GB/s+300% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 4096-bit+3100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.0 (Radeon R9 Fury). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.4. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Fury |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+17% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+5% | 4.4 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 Fury). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 6.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Radeon R9 Fury).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Fury |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCE 3.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | UVD 6.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 Fury's 275W — a 114.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 600W (Radeon R9 Fury). Power connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 195mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 65°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Fury |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-73% | 275W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-50% | 600W |
| Power Connector | None | 2x 8-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 195mm |
| Height | 111mm | 115mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | 65°C-7% |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+203% | 34.6 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 Fury launched at $549. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 72.9% less ($400 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 17.3 (Radeon R9 Fury) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 205.2% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 Fury |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-73% | $549 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+205% | 17.3 |
| Codename | TU117 | Fiji |
| Release | April 23 2019 | July 10 2015 |
| Ranking | #323 | #274 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













