NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q vs AMD Radeon R9 280

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q and AMD Radeon R9 280 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Video outputs and ports, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q

AMD Radeon R9 280

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q

Videocard is newer: launch date 6 year(s) 0 month(s) later
Around 29% higher boost clock speed: 1200 MHz vs 933 MHz
A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
Around 33% higher maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 3 GB
9.6x more memory clock speed: 12000 MHz vs 1250 MHz
Around 17% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6470 vs 5552
Around 23% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 9780 vs 7957
Around 23% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 9780 vs 7957
Around 58% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3172 vs 2009

Specifications (specs)
Launch date	16 Mar 2020 vs 4 March 2014
Boost clock speed	1200 MHz vs 933 MHz
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm vs 28 nm
Maximum memory size	4 GB vs 3 GB
Memory clock speed	12000 MHz vs 1250 MHz
Benchmarks
PassMark - G3D Mark	6470 vs 5552
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	9780 vs 7957
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	9780 vs 7957
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	3172 vs 2009

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 280

Around 75% higher pipelines: 1792 vs 1024
Around 98% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 665 vs 336
Around 71% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3698 vs 2168
Around 68% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3337 vs 1982
Around 71% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3698 vs 2168
Around 68% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3337 vs 1982

Specifications (specs)
Pipelines	1792 vs 1024
Benchmarks
PassMark - G2D Mark	665 vs 336
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	3698 vs 2168
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	3337 vs 1982
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	3698 vs 2168
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	3337 vs 1982

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 280

PassMark - G3D Mark

GPU 1

GPU 2

6470

5552

PassMark - G2D Mark

GPU 1

GPU 2

336

665

GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)

GPU 1

GPU 2

9780

7957

GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)

GPU 1

GPU 2

2168

3698

GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)

GPU 1

GPU 2

1982

3337

GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)

GPU 1

GPU 2

9780

7957

GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)

GPU 1

GPU 2

2168

3698

GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)

GPU 1

GPU 2

1982

3337

3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score

GPU 1

GPU 2

3172

2009

Name	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q	AMD Radeon R9 280
PassMark - G3D Mark	6470	5552
PassMark - G2D Mark	336	665
Geekbench - OpenCL	39198
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	9780	7957
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	2168	3698
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	1982	3337
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	9780	7957
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	2168	3698
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	1982	3337
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	3172	2009
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)		67.829
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)		1266.685
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)		6.495
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)		79.909
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)		365.384

Compare specifications (specs)

	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q	AMD Radeon R9 280
Essentials
Architecture	Turing	GCN 1.0
Code name	N18P-G62	Tahiti
Launch date	16 Mar 2020	4 March 2014
Place in performance rating	425	422
Type	Laptop	Desktop
Design		AMD Radeon R9 200 Series
Launch price (MSRP)		$279
Technical info
Boost clock speed	1200 MHz	933 MHz
Core clock speed	1035 MHz
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	28 nm
Pipelines	1024	1792
Floating-point performance		3,344 gflops
Stream Processors		1792
Texture fill rate		104.5 GTexel / s
Thermal Design Power (TDP)		200 Watt
Transistor count		4,313 million
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Laptop size	medium sized
Bus support		PCIe 3.0
Interface		PCIe 3.0 x16
Length		275 mm
Supplementary power connectors		1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin
API support
DirectX	12.1	12
OpenGL		4.5
Vulkan
Memory
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	3 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	12000 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory type	GDDR6	GDDR5
Memory bandwidth		240 GB/s
Video outputs and ports
Display Connectors		2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort
DisplayPort support
Dual-link DVI support
Eyefinity
HDMI
VGA
Technologies
AMD Eyefinity
CrossFire
DDMA audio
FreeSync
HD3D
LiquidVR
TressFX
TrueAudio
Unified Video Decoder (UVD)