NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs AMD Radeon R9 Fury

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and AMD Radeon R9 Fury 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 4 year(s) 8 month(s) later
• Around 49% higher boost clock speed: 1485 MHz vs 1000 MHz
• 424.3x more texture fill rate: 95.04 GTexel/s vs 224.0 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
• 3x more memory clock speed: 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective) vs 500 MHz
• Around 8% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 151.899 vs 140.274
• Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 12180 vs 10116
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8926 vs 3717
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 8062 vs 3356
• Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 12180 vs 10116
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8926 vs 3717
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 8062 vs 3356

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 Fury

• 3.5x more pipelines: 3584 vs 1024
• Around 27% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 9593 vs 7540
• 2.1x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 795 vs 385
• Around 26% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 53223 vs 42105
• Around 95% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 3595.432 vs 1844.67
• Around 22% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 13.082 vs 10.683
• Around 14% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 132.701 vs 115.919
• Around 23% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 789.536 vs 644.054
• Around 30% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 4739 vs 3658

Compare benchmarks

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

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	7540 9593
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	385 795
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	42105 53223
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	151.899 140.274
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1844.67 3595.432
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10.683 13.082
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	115.919 132.701
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	644.054 789.536
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	12180 10116
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8926 3717
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8062 3356
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	12180 10116
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8926 3717
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8062 3356
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	3658 4739

Compare specifications (specs)