
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon R9 M295X
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
- ✅+52.8% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $151 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 207.6% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 17.2 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 M295X: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 M295X is already obsolete for modern gaming.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 250W, a 175W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌22800% longer card at 229mm vs 1mm.
Radeon R9 M295X
2014Why buy it
- ✅Measures 1mm instead of 229mm, a 228mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (5,150 vs 7,869).
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌101.3% HIGHER MSRP$300 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 17.2 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($300 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌233.3% higher power demand at 250W vs 75W.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon R9 M295X
2014Why buy it
- ✅+52.8% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Costs $151 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 207.6% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 17.2 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon R9 M295X: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon R9 M295X is already obsolete for modern gaming.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 250W, a 175W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅Measures 1mm instead of 229mm, a 228mm 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.
- ❌22800% longer card at 229mm vs 1mm.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (5,150 vs 7,869).
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2014-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌101.3% HIGHER MSRP$300 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 17.2 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($300 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌233.3% higher power demand at 250W vs 75W.
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon R9 M295X?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Radeon R9 M295X still worth buying for gaming in 2026?
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 M295X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 104 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 89 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 72 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 43 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 90 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 79 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 57 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 33 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 29 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 27 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 18 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 16 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M295X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 96 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 74 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 61 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 44 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 58 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 41 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 31 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 23 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 23 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 16 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 13 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 9 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M295X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 232 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 185 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 154 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 116 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 174 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 139 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 116 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 87 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 116 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 93 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 77 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 58 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M295X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 139 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 113 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 97 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 81 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 104 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 85 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 74 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 57 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 61 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 47 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 37 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 26 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 M295X

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 M295X
Radeon R9 M295X
The Radeon R9 M295X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 23 2014. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 723 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,150 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R9 M295X's 5,150 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 52.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R9 M295X uses GCN 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,048 (Radeon R9 M295X). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.961 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M295X).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M295X |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+53% | 5,150 |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2048+129% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 2.961 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 128+129% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+75% | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 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 M295X relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M295X |
|---|---|---|
| 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 176 GB/s (Radeon R9 M295X) — a 37.5% advantage for the Radeon R9 M295X. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 M295X) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M295X |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 176 GB/s+38% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (Radeon R9 M295X). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M295X |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon R9 M295X). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 4.2.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M295X |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCE 3.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | UVD 4.2 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | — |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 M295X's 250W — a 107.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon R9 M295X). Power connectors: None vs Mobile. Card length: 229mm vs 1mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M295X |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-70% | 250W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | Mobile |
| Length | 229mm | 1mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+409% | 20.6 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 M295X launched at $300. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 50.3% less ($151 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 17.2 (Radeon R9 M295X) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 207% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 M295X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-50% | $300 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+207% | 17.2 |
| Codename | TU117 | Amethyst |
| Release | April 23 2019 | November 23 2014 |
| Ranking | #323 | #437 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













