NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs AMD Radeon R7 A265

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q and AMD Radeon R7 A265 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, 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), 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.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

• Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 3 month(s) later
• Around 41% higher core clock speed: 1020 MHz vs 725 MHz
• Around 51% higher boost clock speed: 1245 MHz vs 825 MHz
• 3521.2x more texture fill rate: 69.72 GTexel/s vs 19.8 GTexel / s
• 2.3x more pipelines: 896 vs 384
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 11% higher memory clock speed: 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) vs 1800 MHz
• 6.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6162 vs 994
• 5.1x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 35607 vs 6925

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 A265

• Around 44% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 468 vs 326

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 A265

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	6162 994
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	326 468
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	35607 6925

Compare specifications (specs)