
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon RX 6500 XT
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 $50 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 107W, a 32W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon RX 6500 XT across 38 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌33.1% longer card at 229mm vs 172mm.
Radeon RX 6500 XT
2022Why buy it
- ✅3.3% more average FPS across 38 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅Measures 172mm instead of 229mm, a 57mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌33.6% HIGHER MSRP$199 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌42.7% higher power demand at 107W vs 75W.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon RX 6500 XT
2022Why buy it
- ✅Costs $50 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $199 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 107W, a 32W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅3.3% more average FPS across 38 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅Measures 172mm instead of 229mm, a 57mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon RX 6500 XT across 38 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌33.1% longer card at 229mm vs 172mm.
Trade-offs
- ❌33.6% HIGHER MSRP$199 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌42.7% higher power demand at 107W vs 75W.
Quick Answers
So, is Radeon RX 6500 XT 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?
Is GeForce GTX 1650 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 RX 6500 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 107 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 94 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 81 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 67 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 95 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 80 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 67 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 56 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 47 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 44 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 33 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 29 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6500 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 184 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 143 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 108 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 69 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 119 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 92 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 69 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 48 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 58 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 45 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 37 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 25 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6500 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 359 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 315 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 234 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 189 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 291 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 257 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 196 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 156 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 166 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 145 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 99 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 70 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6500 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 325 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 251 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 221 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 186 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 231 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 173 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 145 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 118 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 115 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 87 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 76 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 59 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 6500 XT

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 RX 6500 XT
Radeon RX 6500 XT
The Radeon RX 6500 XT is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 19 2022. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2610 MHz to 2815 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 107W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 16 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 9,603 points. Launch price was $199.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon RX 6500 XT's 9,603 — the Radeon RX 6500 XT leads by 22%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX 6500 XT uses RDNA 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,024 (Radeon RX 6500 XT). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.765 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 6500 XT). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2815 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6500 XT |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 9,603+22% |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 1024+14% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 5.765 TFLOPS+93% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2815 MHz+69% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 64+14% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+250% | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the Radeon RX 6500 XT is support for FSR Frame Generation + AFMF. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The GeForce GTX 1650 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.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 RX 6500 XT relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6500 XT |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | FSR 3 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR Frame Generation + AFMF |
| 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 144 GB/s (Radeon RX 6500 XT) — a 12.5% advantage for the Radeon RX 6500 XT. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6500 XT |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 144 GB/s+13% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (Radeon RX 6500 XT). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6500 XT |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3+50% | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs None (Radeon RX 6500 XT). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 3.0 (Limited). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264 (Decode),HEVC (Decode) (Radeon RX 6500 XT).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6500 XT |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | None |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | VCN 3.0 (Limited) |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264 (Decode),HEVC (Decode) |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon RX 6500 XT's 107W — a 35.2% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 400W (Radeon RX 6500 XT). Power connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 172mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6500 XT |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-30% | 107W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-25% | 400W |
| Power Connector | None | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 172mm |
| Height | 111mm | 112mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+17% | 89.7 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon RX 6500 XT launched at $199. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 25.1% less ($50 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 48.3 (Radeon RX 6500 XT) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 9.3% better value. The Radeon RX 6500 XT is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 6500 XT |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-25% | $199 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+9% | 48.3 |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 24 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | January 19 2022 |
| Ranking | #323 | #270 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













