AMD Radeon 540 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 540 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 occupy different tiers of the graphics card market, as evidenced by their divergent benchmark scores and hardware configurations. The data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, but the specifics of that gap, the architectural reasons behind it, and the contexts where each card might still find a role are worth exploring in detail. This analysis draws exclusively from the provided fact pack to compare the two end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 540 has a higher average benchmark score of 7673, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650's 7472. This is a 2.7% difference in favor of the AMD card, despite the GTX 1650 winning both head-to-head tests listed.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the head-to-head Geekbench tests?

A: The GTX 1650 wins decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 29629 against the Radeon 540's 6184, a delta of -79.1% from the AMD card's perspective. In Geekbench Vulkan, the scores are 33042 versus 9162, a -72.3% delta.

Q: What are the key memory specification differences?

A: The Radeon 540 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 32-bit bus, yielding 24.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has a higher transistor density of 23.5M / mm², while the AMD Radeon 540 has a density of 21.4M / mm². The GTX 1650 also packs over twice as many transistors (4,700 million vs 2,200 million).

Q: What is the difference in their pixel and texture rates?

A: The GTX 1650 is substantially faster in both metrics. It has a pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s, while the Radeon 540 has a pixel rate of 18.93 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 28.39 GTexel/s.

Q: Do both cards support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. They differ in Vulkan support, with the Radeon 540 supporting Vulkan 1.3 and the GTX 1650 supporting Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 1650 also supports DirectX 12_1, while the Radeon 540 is limited to 12_0.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is profound, explaining their performance disparity. The AMD Radeon 540 is built on the GCN 4.0 architecture, utilizing the Lexa chip, and is part of the Polaris generation on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 employs the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip, part of the GeForce 16 generation, manufactured on a 12 nm process by TSMC. This process difference is a fundamental factor; the GTX 1650's smaller node allows for a much higher transistor count of 4,700 million versus the Radeon 540's 2,200 million, all within a larger die size of 200 mm² compared to 103 mm².

The compute resources are starkly different. The Radeon 540 is equipped with 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The GTX 1650 more than doubles these figures, featuring 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This directly translates to the GTX 1650's higher raw throughput numbers, such as its 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus the Radeon 540's 908.5 GFLOPS. The FP16 performance also tells a story of different design priorities: the Radeon 540 has a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio (908.5 GFLOPS), while the GTX 1650 has a 2:1 ratio (5.967 TFLOPS), indicating a more capable compute pipeline for certain workloads.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The Radeon 540's 32-bit memory bus is a severe bottleneck, limiting bandwidth to just 24.00 GB/s with its 1 GB frame buffer. The GTX 1650's 128-bit bus, combined with its 4 GB capacity, delivers 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth—over five times more. This difference has a direct impact on performance at higher resolutions and with larger textures. Furthermore, the GTX 1650 features a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, double the width of the Radeon 540's PCIe 3.0 x8, which affects data transfer speeds between the GPU and the rest of the system.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The available head-to-head data is limited to two Geekbench tests, but the results are unambiguous. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 29629, while the AMD Radeon 540 scores 6184. This represents a delta of -79.1% relative to the AMD card, meaning the GTX 1650 is approximately 4.8 times faster in this compute-oriented test. The Geekbench Vulkan test paints a similar picture, with the GTX 1650 scoring 33042 against the Radeon 540's 9162, a -72.3% delta, or roughly 3.6 times faster.

These results are consistent with the theoretical specifications. The GTX 1650's massive advantages in shading units, memory bandwidth, and clock speeds (with a base of 1485 MHz and boost of 1665 MHz, whereas the Radeon 540 lacks listed base or boost clocks) all contribute to its dominance in synthetic benchmarks. The Radeon 540's average benchmark score of 7673 is higher than the GTX 1650's 7472, but this is influenced by the different suites of tests each card was subjected to. The GTX 1650 has a broader set of benchmark results, including multiple Passmark tests, which may pull its average down relative to the Radeon 540's limited set of two Geekbench scores.

Interestingly, the GTX 1650's nearest rivals list includes the AMD Radeon R7 350 with an average score of 7425 and a deltaPct of 0.6, while the Radeon 540's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 250 with a score of 7557 and a deltaPct of 1.5. This proximity in average scores, despite the massive head-to-head gap, suggests that the Radeon 540's benchmark profile is either narrowly focused or that its performance characteristics are better suited to specific workloads that skew its average upward.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet highlights several key areas where the two cards diverge. The most obvious is memory: the Radeon 540 offers 1024 MB on a 32-bit bus, while the GTX 1650 offers 4 GB on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth figures follow suit, with 24.00 GB/s versus 128.1 GB/s. The processing power difference is equally stark, with the Radeon 540's 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs dwarfed by the GTX 1650's 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

Clock speeds are another differentiator, though the Radeon 540 lacks base and boost clock data. The GTX 1650 has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The Radeon 540's memory clock is listed as 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the GTX 1650's memory clock is 2001 MHz with 8 Gbps effective. The process node differs (14 nm for AMD, 12 nm for NVIDIA), as does the foundry (GlobalFoundries vs TSMC). The GTX 1650 is also physically larger, with dimensions of 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width, and it occupies a dual-slot form factor, whereas the Radeon 540 is single-slot.

Power characteristics differ as well, with the Radeon 540 having a TDP of 50 W and the GTX 1650 having a TDP of 75 W, though both suggest a 250 W PSU and require no external power connectors. Display outputs vary, with the Radeon 540 offering 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 1650 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The GTX 1650 also has a launch MSRP of 149 USD. Finally, the bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the AMD card and PCIe 3.0 x16 for the NVIDIA card.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior performer for most tasks. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by a wide margin, and its hardware specifications—more shading units, higher memory bandwidth, and more transistors—support its dominance in compute and graphics workloads. The GTX 1650 is also a more capable card for modern gaming, given its support for DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, which are more recent API versions than those supported by the Radeon 540.

The AMD Radeon 540's higher average benchmark score of 7673 is an outlier driven by its limited benchmark set, which does not include the demanding Passmark tests that the GTX 1650 was subjected to. When comparing the two directly in the same tests, the GTX 1650 is unequivocally faster. The Radeon 540's only advantages are its lower TDP of 50 W and its single-slot design, which could be relevant for specific low-power or space-constrained builds. However, for general performance, the GTX 1650 is the clear choice. Its 4 GB of memory and 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth are far more future-proof than the Radeon 540's 1 GB and 24.00 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins in every performance scenario that can be derived from the data. It excels in compute-heavy workloads, as shown by its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores, which are multiple times higher than the Radeon 540's. Its higher pixel rate (53.28 GPixel/s), texture rate (93.24 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (2.984 TFLOPS) make it suitable for gaming and creative applications that demand high fill rates and shader processing. The larger memory capacity and bandwidth also give it an edge in scenarios involving high-resolution textures or complex scenes.

The AMD Radeon 540's wins are more niche and based on its physical and power characteristics rather than raw performance. With a TDP of 50 W and no power connectors, it is a candidate for systems with very limited power budgets. Its single-slot design is another advantage, fitting into cases where space is at a premium. Its support for Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0) ensures basic compatibility with modern APIs, but its performance ceiling is low. The data suggests that the Radeon 540 would only be a viable choice for basic display output or very light, non-demanding tasks, whereas the GTX 1650 is a functional entry-level gaming and compute card.