NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs AMD Radeon R9 290

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

• Videocard is newer: launch date 6 year(s) 4 month(s) later
• Around 43% higher core clock speed: 1350 MHz vs 947 MHz
• 627.3x more texture fill rate: 95.04 GTexel/s vs 151.5 GTexel / s
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
• 5.5x lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 275 Watt
• Around 70% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 152.235 vs 89.325
• Around 35% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1843.045 vs 1366.314
• Around 6% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 10.681 vs 10.034
• Around 17% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 115.607 vs 98.765
• Around 19% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 644.098 vs 540.645
• Around 93% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 12180 vs 6300
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8926 vs 3711
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 8062 vs 3354
• Around 93% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 12180 vs 6300
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8926 vs 3711
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 8062 vs 3354

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 290

• 2.5x more pipelines: 2560 vs 1024
• 3.3x more memory clock speed: 5000 MHz vs 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective)
• Around 9% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 8210 vs 7539
• 2x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 763 vs 380
• 2.4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 102277 vs 41907
• Around 1% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3699 vs 3656

Compare benchmarks

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

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	7539 8210
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	380 763
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	41907 102277
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	152.235 89.325
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1843.045 1366.314
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10.681 10.034
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	115.607 98.765
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	644.098 540.645
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	12180 6300
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8926 3711
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8062 3354
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	12180 6300
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8926 3711
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8062 3354
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	3656 3699

Compare specifications (specs)