
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon RX 7700
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 $300 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $449 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 190W, a 115W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 240mm, a 11mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon RX 7700 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 16 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌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.
Radeon RX 7700
2023Why buy it
- ✅122.5% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
- ✅300% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (16 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌201.3% HIGHER MSRP$449 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌153.3% higher power demand at 190W vs 75W.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon RX 7700
2023Why buy it
- ✅Costs $300 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $449 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 190W, a 115W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 240mm, a 11mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Why buy it
- ✅122.5% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
- ✅300% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (16 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon RX 7700 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 16 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌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.
Trade-offs
- ❌201.3% HIGHER MSRP$449 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌153.3% higher power demand at 190W vs 75W.
Quick Answers
So, is Radeon RX 7700 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 7700 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 210 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 192 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 169 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 153 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 192 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 160 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 134 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 125 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 125 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 104 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 82 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 75 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 7700 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 374 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 319 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 249 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 198 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 229 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 197 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 156 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 126 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 106 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 89 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 73 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 56 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 7700 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 838 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 684 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 600 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 498 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 643 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 520 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 443 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 374 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 441 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 355 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 298 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 240 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 7700 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 602 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 514 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 441 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 352 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 465 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 394 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 320 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 258 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 291 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 268 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 232 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 189 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 7700

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 7700
Radeon RX 7700
The Radeon RX 7700 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 4 2023. It features the RDNA 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1500 MHz to 2600 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 190W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 32 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 22,146 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon RX 7700's 22,146 — the Radeon RX 7700 leads by 181.4%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX 7700 uses RDNA 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,048 (Radeon RX 7700). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 20.48 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 7700). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2600 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 7700 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 22,146+181% |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 3.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2048+129% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 20.48 TFLOPS+586% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2600 MHz+56% |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 128+129% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+75% | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the Radeon RX 7700 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 7700 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 7700 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon RX 7700 has 16 GB. The Radeon RX 7700 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 624 GB/s (Radeon RX 7700) — a 387.5% advantage for the Radeon RX 7700. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Radeon RX 7700) — the Radeon RX 7700 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 7700 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 624 GB/s+388% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (Radeon RX 7700). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 7700 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCN 4.0 (Radeon RX 7700). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Radeon RX 7700).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 7700 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCN 4.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | VCN 4.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon RX 7700's 190W — a 86.8% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 650W (Radeon RX 7700). Power connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 240mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 7700 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-61% | 190W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-54% | 650W |
| Power Connector | None | 2x 8-pin |
| Length | 229mm | 240mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-7% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 116.6+11% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon RX 7700 launched at $449. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 66.8% less ($300 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 49.3 (Radeon RX 7700) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 7.1% better value. The Radeon RX 7700 is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon RX 7700 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-67% | $449 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+7% | 49.3 |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 33 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | January 4 2023 |
| Ranking | #323 | #140 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













