AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 250 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 represent two distinct eras of GPU design, separated by nearly six years of architectural progress. The data reveals a stark performance gulf: in the sole shared benchmark test, the GTX 1650 scores 29,629 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R7 250 manages only 7,557 points. This translates to a 74.5% deficit for the older AMD card, placing it at the 41st percentile of all GPUs compared to the GTX 1650's 40th percentile—a curious statistical overlap despite the massive raw score difference. The R7 250's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A310 (7,550) and AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580), while the GTX 1650 sits alongside the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447) and Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441), highlighting how benchmark averages can obscure generational leaps.

The Verdict

The data points to a single clear conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the only viable choice for any application requiring modern graphics performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 29,629 is roughly four times higher than the R7 250's 7,557, a difference so large that it dwarfs any other consideration. The R7 250, with zero benchmark wins in the head-to-head comparison, appears hopelessly outclassed in compute workloads. However, the percentile data tells a more nuanced story: both cards sit near the bottom of the overall GPU distribution, with the R7 250 at the 41st percentile and the GTX 1650 at the 40th. This suggests that while the GTX 1650 utterly dominates the R7 250, neither card is positioned as a high-performance part by modern standards.

For users constrained to legacy systems or extremely light 2D workloads, the R7 250's single-slot design and 55W TDP might hold appeal, but the data offers no performance justification. The GTX 1650, despite being a dual-slot card with a 75W TDP, delivers 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute against the R7 250's 947.2 GFLOPS—a 3.15x advantage. The verdict is unambiguous: the GTX 1650 wins every measurable category, and the R7 250 should only be considered if the GTX 1650 is physically incompatible with the system in question. The GTX 1650's launch MSRP is 149 USD, which should be stated once for reference.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs could not be more different in their fundamental design. The R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28nm process at TSMC with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. In contrast, the GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip based on Turing architecture, built on a 12nm process at the same foundry, packing 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story of manufacturing progress: the R7 250 achieves 12.2M transistors per mm², while the GTX 1650 reaches 23.5M per mm²—nearly double the density.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The R7 250 fields 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the GTX 1650 counters with 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This represents a 75% increase in shading units, a 75% increase in TMUs, and a doubling of ROPs. The memory subsystems are equally divergent: the R7 250 uses 1GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GTX 1650 uses 4GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus but achieves 128.1 GB/s—a 4.45x bandwidth advantage. The GTX 1650 also features base and boost clocks of 1485 MHz and 1665 MHz respectively, whereas the R7 250 has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

API support reveals another generational gap. The R7 250 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 1650 also offers FP16 compute at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1 rate), a feature entirely absent from the R7 250's specifications. Display outputs differ as well: the R7 250 provides HDMI 1.4a and DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 1650 offers HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.4a, enabling higher resolution and refresh rate support.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on benchmark data, the GTX 1650 wins the only head-to-head test. The Geekbench OpenCL result of 29,629 versus 7,557 represents a 74.5% margin, making the GTX 1650 the clear victor in any compute-oriented workload. The R7 250 has zero wins across the entire head-to-head comparison, meaning there is no benchmark category where it outperforms the GTX 1650.

However, examining the specification sheets suggests theoretical niches. The R7 250's 55W TDP and single-slot design could make it suitable for compact or low-power systems where the GTX 1650's 75W TDP and dual-slot footprint might not fit. The R7 250 also lacks any power connectors, as does the GTX 1650, but the older card's smaller physical footprint (168mm vs 229mm length) could be advantageous in space-constrained chassis. Both cards require a 250W suggested PSU, so system power requirements are identical.

The GTX 1650's 4GB GDDR5 memory versus the R7 250's 1GB DDR3 means the newer card can handle larger textures and higher resolutions without exhausting memory bandwidth. The GTX 1650's pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s dwarf the R7 250's 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s, respectively. For gaming or GPU-accelerated applications, the GTX 1650 is the only rational choice. The R7 250 might still function for basic 2D desktop use or legacy software, but the data provides no evidence of any workload where it would be preferable.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 than the R7 250 in compute benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 29,629 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R7 250 scores 7,557. This represents a 74.5% performance advantage for the GTX 1650.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 1650 offers 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth from its 4GB GDDR5 memory, compared to the R7 250's 28.80 GB/s from 1GB DDR3. The GTX 1650's bandwidth is 4.45 times higher.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon R7 250 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 are listed as end-of-life products in the data.

Q: What are the TDP differences between the two cards?

A: The R7 250 has a 55W TDP, while the GTX 1650 has a 75W TDP. Both require a 250W suggested PSU and have no external power connectors.

Q: Which card supports newer display outputs?

A: The GTX 1650 supports HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R7 250 supports HDMI 1.4a and DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 1650's outputs are newer and support higher bandwidth.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of transistor count?

A: The GTX 1650 contains 4,700 million transistors, while the R7 250 contains 1,500 million. The GTX 1650 has more than three times the transistor count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 achieves 29,629 points against the AMD Radeon R7 250's 7,557 points. The deltaPct of -74.5% indicates the R7 250 scores 74.5% lower than the GTX 1650. To put this in context, the R7 250's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, only 0.1% higher) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (7,580, 0.3% higher), while the GTX 1650's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, 0.3% lower) and the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441, 0.4% lower). This means the R7 250 performs at roughly the same level as integrated graphics from Intel's UHD 750, while the GTX 1650 sits in a slightly higher performance tier despite its similar overall percentile ranking.

The GTX 1650 also has additional benchmark results that the R7 250 lacks entirely. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 305; in Geekbench Vulkan, it reaches 33,042; and in Passmark G3D, it scores 7,880. Passmark DirectX 9 yields 124, DirectX 11 yields 58, DirectX 10 yields 39, and DirectX 12 yields 35. The GPU compute score is 3,048, and the G2D score is 561. These scores provide a more complete picture of the GTX 1650's capabilities, but no comparable data exists for the R7 250, so direct comparisons beyond OpenCL are impossible from the fact pack.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip with GCN 1.0 architecture from the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation, released on 2013-10-07. The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip with Turing architecture from the GeForce 16 generation, released on 2019-04-22. Process nodes differ: 28nm for the R7 250 versus 12nm for the GTX 1650. Transistor counts are 1,500 million versus 4,700 million, with die sizes of 123 mm² versus 200 mm².

Memory configurations are starkly different: the R7 250 has 1024 MB of DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the GTX 1650 has 4GB of GDDR5 at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). Both use a 128-bit bus, but bandwidth differs dramatically: 28.80 GB/s versus 128.1 GB/s. The R7 250 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rates are 14.80 GPixel/s versus 53.28 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 29.60 GTexel/s versus 93.24 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 947.2 GFLOPS versus 2.984 TFLOPS, with the GTX 1650 additionally offering 5.967 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The R7 250 has a 55W TDP, is single-slot, and measures 168mm in length. The GTX 1650 has a 75W TDP, is dual-slot, and measures 229mm by 111mm by 35mm. Both require a 250W PSU and have no power connectors. Display outputs differ: the R7 250 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 1650 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. API support differs in DirectX version (12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_1)) and Vulkan version (1.2.170 versus 1.4). The GTX 1650 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD.