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 $499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 88.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 28.0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon RX Vega 64: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon RX Vega 64 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 75W instead of 295W, a 220W reduction.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon RX Vega 64 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Radeon RX Vega 64

2017

Why buy it

✅83.5% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 8 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
234.9% HIGHER MSRP
$499 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 28.0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($499 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌293.3% higher power demand at 295W vs 75W.
❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon RX Vega 64

2017

Why buy it

✅Costs $350 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Delivers 88.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 28.0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $499 MSRP).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon RX Vega 64: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon RX Vega 64 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 75W instead of 295W, a 220W reduction.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Why buy it

✅83.5% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon RX Vega 64 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 8 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
234.9% HIGHER MSRP
$499 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 28.0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($499 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌293.3% higher power demand at 295W vs 75W.
❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon RX Vega 64 better than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes. Radeon RX Vega 64 is the better GPU overall here. You are getting 83.5% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data, 77.3% higher PassMark G3D performance, and 8 GB vs 4 GB of VRAM. It also comes from 2017 instead of 2019, which helps its case as the more complete modern gaming card.

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

GeForce GTX 1650 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2019 generation instead of 2017, the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling, and a 12nm process instead of 14nm. 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?

Radeon RX Vega 64 is the smarter buy by a wide margin. Radeon RX Vega 64 is about 234.9% more expensive on MSRP at $499 MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 83.5% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and 77.3% higher G3D Mark. GeForce GTX 1650 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

When does GeForce GTX 1650 make more sense than Radeon RX Vega 64?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 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, lower power draw (75W vs 295W), future-proofing, and staying closer to $149 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon RX Vega 64. The trade-off is that Radeon RX Vega 64 currently gives you 77.3% higher G3D Mark and 83.5% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. GeForce GTX 1650 still holds the G3D-per-dollar lead, so the performance win comes with a real value premium.

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 Vega 64 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX Vega 64
1080p
low	94 FPS	141 FPS
medium	83 FPS	126 FPS
high	70 FPS	108 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	90 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	122 FPS
medium	74 FPS	100 FPS
high	60 FPS	83 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	71 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	68 FPS
medium	39 FPS	57 FPS
high	27 FPS	43 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	37 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX Vega 64

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX Vega 64
1080p
low	136 FPS	317 FPS
medium	113 FPS	279 FPS
high	94 FPS	224 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	186 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	215 FPS
medium	62 FPS	187 FPS
high	44 FPS	160 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	128 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	103 FPS
medium	27 FPS	88 FPS
high	21 FPS	73 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	57 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX Vega 64

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX Vega 64
1080p
low	323 FPS	628 FPS
medium	283 FPS	502 FPS
high	205 FPS	418 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	314 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	471 FPS
medium	202 FPS	377 FPS
high	151 FPS	314 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	235 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	314 FPS
medium	117 FPS	251 FPS
high	79 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	157 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX Vega 64

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX Vega 64
1080p
low	261 FPS	391 FPS
medium	211 FPS	347 FPS
high	191 FPS	295 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	236 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	314 FPS
medium	158 FPS	279 FPS
high	135 FPS	228 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	181 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	200 FPS
medium	74 FPS	188 FPS
high	65 FPS	152 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	127 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon RX Vega 64

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon RX Vega 64

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 Vega 64

The Radeon RX Vega 64 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 7 2017. It features the GCN 5.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1247 MHz to 1546 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 295W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 13,949 points. Launch price was $499.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon RX Vega 64's 13,949 — the Radeon RX Vega 64 leads by 77.3%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon RX Vega 64 uses GCN 5.0, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4,096 (Radeon RX Vega 64). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.66 TFLOPS (Radeon RX Vega 64). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1546 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX Vega 64
G3D Mark Score	7,869	13,949+77%
Architecture	Turing	GCN 5.0
Process Node	12 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	896	4096+357%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	12.66 TFLOPS+324%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+8%	1546 MHz
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	256+357%
L1 Cache	0.88 MB	1 MB+14%
L2 Cache	1 MB	4 MB+300%

✨

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 RX Vega 64 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX Vega 64
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)

The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon RX Vega 64 has 8 GB. The Radeon RX Vega 64 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 484 GB/s (Radeon RX Vega 64) — a 278.1% advantage for the Radeon RX Vega 64. Bus width: 128-bit vs 2048-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Radeon RX Vega 64) — the Radeon RX Vega 64 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX Vega 64
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	HBM2
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	484 GB/s+278%
Bus Width	128-bit	2048-bit+1500%
L2 Cache	1 MB	4 MB+300%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.1 (Radeon RX Vega 64). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX Vega 64
DirectX	12	12.1
Vulkan	1.4+27%	1.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 4.0 (Radeon RX Vega 64). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 7.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Radeon RX Vega 64).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX Vega 64
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 4.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 7.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon RX Vega 64's 295W — a 118.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 750W (Radeon RX Vega 64). Power connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon RX Vega 64
TDP	75W-75%	295W
Recommended PSU	300W-60%	750W
Power Connector	None	2x 8-pin
Length	229mm	267mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C-18%	85°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+122%	47.3

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon RX Vega 64 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 28.0 (Radeon RX Vega 64) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 88.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).