NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs AMD Radeon R9 290X

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 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

• Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 6 month(s) later
• Around 76% higher boost clock speed: 1665 MHz vs 947 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
• 6.4x more memory clock speed: 8000 MHz vs 1250 MHz
• Around 17% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 134.955 vs 114.883
• Around 26% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10959 vs 8729
• Around 26% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10959 vs 8729

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 290X

• Around 10% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 8644 vs 7876
• Around 33% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 770 vs 577
• Around 8% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 42419 vs 39422
• Around 90% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2460.464 vs 1294.279
• Around 27% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 11.12 vs 8.756
• Around 32% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.942 vs 91.78
• Around 10% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 628.757 vs 569.916
• 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
• Around 10% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3962 vs 3597

Compare benchmarks

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

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	7876 8644
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	577 770
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	39422 42419
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	134.955 114.883
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1294.279 2460.464
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8.756 11.12
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	91.78 120.942
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	569.916 628.757
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10959 8729
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 7055
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 3353
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10959 8729
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 7055
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 3353
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	3597 3962

Compare specifications (specs)