NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs AMD Radeon R9 290X

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and AMD Radeon R9 290X 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 SUPER

• Videocard is newer: launch date 6 year(s) 0 month(s) later
• Around 82% higher boost clock speed: 1725 MHz vs 947 MHz
• 784.1x more texture fill rate: 138.0 GTexel/s vs 176.0 GTexel / s
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
• 2.5x lower typical power consumption: 100 Watt vs 250 Watt
• Around 19% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 10165 vs 8567
• Around 28% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 55744 vs 43410
• Around 52% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 178.014 vs 117.322
• Around 25% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 787.025 vs 628.757
• Around 55% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 13569 vs 8729
• Around 55% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 13569 vs 8729

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 290X

• 2.2x more pipelines: 2816 vs 1280
• Around 1% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 757 vs 750
• Around 25% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2460.464 vs 1961.932
• Around 11% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.942 vs 109.29
• Around 90% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 7055 vs 3715
• Around 90% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 7055 vs 3715
• 11x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3932 vs 357

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 290X

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	10165 8567
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	750 757
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	55744 43410
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	178.014 117.322
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1961.932 2460.464
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	11.169 11.12
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	109.29 120.942
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	787.025 628.757
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	13569 8729
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 7055
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3357 3353
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	13569 8729
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 7055
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3357 3353
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	357 3932

Compare specifications (specs)