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 $350 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 244.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 15.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Draws 75W instead of 180W, a 105W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌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 780

2024

Why buy it

✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌
234.9% HIGHER MSRP
$499 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 15.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($499 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌140% higher power demand at 180W vs 75W.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon RX 780

2024

Why buy it

✅Costs $350 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 244.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 15.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Draws 75W instead of 180W, a 105W reduction.

Why buy it

✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023).
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌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

❌
234.9% HIGHER MSRP
$499 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 15.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($499 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌140% higher power demand at 180W vs 75W.

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon RX 780?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 7,869 vs 7,658 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 card with no meaningful modern upscaling stack, while Radeon RX 780 is a 2024 model from an older generation with FSR 3 + AFMF. So this is not really a tight same-tier comparison. It is more a modern card against an older, weaker alternative.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Radeon RX 780 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2024 generation instead of 2019, better upscaling support with FSR 3 (2023) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack and better frame-generation support with FSR Frame Generation + AFMF (2023) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack, and a 5nm process instead of 12nm. 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?

GeForce GTX 1650 can still make sense if you find it at the right price, especially around $149 MSRP. GeForce GTX 1650 is still the smarter buy for most people, though, because the raw performance is close while the overall package is cleaner. GeForce GTX 1650 is about $350 cheaper on MSRP at $149 MSRP versus $499 MSRP, and you are getting 2.8% higher G3D Mark. Radeon RX 780 is the newer 2024 card, so it still has a real case if you care more about newer architecture and future-proofing than about squeezing out the strongest gaming value today.

When does Radeon RX 780 make more sense than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes. Radeon RX 780 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, future-proofing, and staying closer to $499 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of GeForce GTX 1650. The trade-off is that GeForce GTX 1650 currently gives you 2.8% higher G3D Mark. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 244.1%.

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 RX 780 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 780
1080p
low	94 FPS	159 FPS
medium	83 FPS	148 FPS
high	70 FPS	124 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	95 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	138 FPS
medium	74 FPS	118 FPS
high	60 FPS	98 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	75 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	66 FPS
medium	39 FPS	57 FPS
high	27 FPS	46 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	41 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX 780

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 780
1080p
low	136 FPS	345 FPS
medium	113 FPS	276 FPS
high	94 FPS	230 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	172 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	258 FPS
medium	62 FPS	207 FPS
high	44 FPS	172 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	129 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	163 FPS
medium	27 FPS	133 FPS
high	21 FPS	113 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	86 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX 780

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 780
1080p
low	323 FPS	345 FPS
medium	283 FPS	276 FPS
high	205 FPS	230 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	172 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	258 FPS
medium	202 FPS	207 FPS
high	151 FPS	172 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	129 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	172 FPS
medium	117 FPS	138 FPS
high	79 FPS	115 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	86 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX 780

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 780
1080p
low	261 FPS	345 FPS
medium	211 FPS	276 FPS
high	191 FPS	230 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	172 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	258 FPS
medium	158 FPS	207 FPS
high	135 FPS	172 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	129 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	163 FPS
medium	74 FPS	138 FPS
high	65 FPS	115 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	86 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX 780

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX 780

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 780

The Radeon RX 780 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in September 11 2024. It features the RDNA 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1295 MHz to 2335 MHz. It has 3840 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 180W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 60 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,658 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 and the Radeon RX 780 reaches 7,658 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX 780 uses RDNA 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3,840 (Radeon RX 780). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 35.87 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 780). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2335 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 780
G3D Mark Score	7,869+3%	7,658
Architecture	Turing	RDNA 3.0
Process Node	12 nm	5 nm
Shading Units	896	3840+329%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	35.87 TFLOPS+1102%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz	2335 MHz+40%
ROPs	32	96+200%
TMUs	56	240+329%
L1 Cache	896 KB+17%	768 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	4 MB+300%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

A critical advantage for the Radeon RX 780 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 780 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 780
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. Bus width: 128-bit vs System. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Radeon RX 780) — the Radeon RX 780 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 780
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	Shared
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	System
Bus Width	128-bit	System
L2 Cache	1 MB	4 MB+300%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (12_2) (Radeon RX 780). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 780
DirectX	12	12 (12_2)
Vulkan	1.4	1.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs RDNA 3 Dual Media Engine (Radeon RX 780). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Radeon RX 780).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 780
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	RDNA 3 Dual Media Engine
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	VCN 4.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon RX 780's 180W — a 82.4% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon RX 780). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX 780
TDP	75W-58%	180W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C-18%	85°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+147%	42.5

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon RX 780 launched at $499. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 70.1% less ($350 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 15.3 (Radeon RX 780) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 245.1% better value. The Radeon RX 780 is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2019).