NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs AMD Radeon R9 M395X

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q and AMD Radeon R9 M395X videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. 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 3 year(s) 11 month(s) later
• Around 41% higher core clock speed: 1020 MHz vs 723 MHz
• 753.4x more texture fill rate: 69.72 GTexel/s vs 92.54 GTexel / s
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
• 7.1x lower typical power consumption: 35 Watt vs 250 Watt
• Around 60% higher memory clock speed: 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) vs 1250 MHz
• Around 19% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6162 vs 5195
• Around 29% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 35607 vs 27707
• Around 98% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 129.441 vs 65.367
• Around 31% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1047.138 vs 799.421
• Around 38% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 7.882 vs 5.718
• Around 11% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 78.563 vs 71.057
• Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8824 vs 7365
• Around 72% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3707 vs 2154
• Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8824 vs 7365
• Around 72% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3707 vs 2154

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M395X

• 2.3x more pipelines: 2048 vs 896
• 2.2x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 733 vs 326
• Around 19% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 413.329 vs 346.498

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M395X

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	6162 5195
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	326 733
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	35607 27707
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	129.441 65.367
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1047.138 799.421
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7.882 5.718
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	78.563 71.057
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	346.498 413.329
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8824 7365
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3707 2154
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3352 3354
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8824 7365
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3707 2154
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3352 3354

Compare specifications (specs)