GeForce GTX 1650 vs RadeonT 780M

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

✅+10.9% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
❌400% higher power demand at 75W vs 15W.

RadeonT 780M

2024

Why buy it

✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 4nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 15W instead of 75W, a 60W reduction.
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 4nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,098 vs 7,869).
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

RadeonT 780M

2024

Why buy it

✅+10.9% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).

Why buy it

✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 4nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 15W instead of 75W, a 60W reduction.
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 4nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
❌400% higher power demand at 75W vs 15W.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,098 vs 7,869).
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than RadeonT 780M?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 7,869 vs 7,098 in G3D Mark. On top of that, GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 card with no meaningful modern upscaling stack, while RadeonT 780M is a 2024 model from an older generation with FSR upscaling. 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?

RadeonT 780M 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 Upscaling / FSR 4 (2025) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack, and a 4nm 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 is the smarter buy today, but it is not as lopsided as a simple winner label makes it sound. GeForce GTX 1650 is priced in an unclear MSRP range at $149 MSRP versus an unclear MSRP, and you are getting 10.9% higher G3D Mark. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 100+%. RadeonT 780M is the newer 2024 card, so it still has a real case if you care more about newer architecture, lower power draw (15W vs 75W), and future-proofing than about squeezing out the strongest gaming value today.

When does RadeonT 780M make more sense than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes. RadeonT 780M 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 (15W vs 75W), future-proofing, and staying closer to an unclear MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of GeForce GTX 1650. The trade-off is that GeForce GTX 1650 currently gives you 10.9% higher G3D Mark. It also leads G3D-per-dollar by 100+%.

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

RadeonT 780M Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 780M
1080p
low	94 FPS	93 FPS
medium	83 FPS	78 FPS
high	70 FPS	65 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	43 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	80 FPS
medium	74 FPS	68 FPS
high	60 FPS	51 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	32 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	29 FPS
medium	39 FPS	27 FPS
high	27 FPS	18 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	16 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open RadeonT 780M

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 780M
1080p
low	136 FPS	98 FPS
medium	113 FPS	68 FPS
high	94 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	33 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	67 FPS
medium	62 FPS	45 FPS
high	44 FPS	33 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	24 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	35 FPS
medium	27 FPS	25 FPS
high	21 FPS	19 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	13 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open RadeonT 780M

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 780M
1080p
low	323 FPS	319 FPS
medium	283 FPS	256 FPS
high	205 FPS	213 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	160 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	240 FPS
medium	202 FPS	192 FPS
high	151 FPS	160 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	120 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	159 FPS
medium	117 FPS	128 FPS
high	79 FPS	104 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	77 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open RadeonT 780M

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 780M
1080p
low	261 FPS	214 FPS
medium	211 FPS	171 FPS
high	191 FPS	146 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	108 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	142 FPS
medium	158 FPS	117 FPS
high	135 FPS	101 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	75 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	83 FPS
medium	74 FPS	67 FPS
high	65 FPS	54 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	38 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open RadeonT 780M

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and RadeonT 780M

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.

RadeonT 780M

The RadeonT 780M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 31 2024. It features the RDNA 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 800 MHz to 2900 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,098 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the RadeonT 780M's 7,098 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 10.9%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the RadeonT 780M uses RDNA 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 768 (RadeonT 780M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8.909 TFLOPS (RadeonT 780M). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2900 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 780M
G3D Mark Score	7,869+11%	7,098
Architecture	Turing	RDNA 3.0
Process Node	12 nm	4 nm
Shading Units	896+17%	768
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	8.909 TFLOPS+199%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz	2900 MHz+74%
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	56+17%	48
L1 Cache	896 KB+250%	256 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

✨

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 RadeonT 780M relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 780M
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 video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (RadeonT 780M) — the RadeonT 780M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 780M
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (RadeonT 780M). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 780M
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 (RadeonT 780M). 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 (RadeonT 780M).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	RadeonT 780M
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 RadeonT 780M's 15W — a 133.3% difference. The RadeonT 780M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (RadeonT 780M). Power connectors: None vs None. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.