NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs AMD Radeon R9 FURY X

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and AMD Radeon R9 FURY X 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 4 year(s) 4 month(s) later
• Around 64% higher boost clock speed: 1725 MHz vs 1050 MHz
• 513.4x more texture fill rate: 138.0 GTexel/s vs 268.8 GTexel / s
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
• 2.8x lower typical power consumption: 100 Watt vs 275 Watt
• Around 1% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 10143 vs 10015
• Around 15% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 178.926 vs 155.307
• Around 56% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 13569 vs 8673
• Around 56% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 13569 vs 8673

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 FURY X

• 3.2x more pipelines: 4096 vs 1280
• Around 12% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 843 vs 753
• Around 77% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 3431.249 vs 1940.024
• Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 12.49 vs 11.167
• Around 49% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 153.089 vs 102.69
• Around 7% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 857.575 vs 802.026
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8925 vs 3715
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8925 vs 3715
• Around 11% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 5170 vs 4670

Compare benchmarks

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

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	10143 10015
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	753 843
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	178.926 155.307
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1940.024 3431.249
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	11.167 12.49
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	102.69 153.089
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	802.026 857.575
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	13569 8673
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 8925
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3357 3361
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	13569 8673
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 8925
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3357 3361
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	4670 5170

Compare specifications (specs)