AMD Radeon R7 350 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

# Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins every head-to-head comparison, and it wins by margins that are not close. In the two shared tests — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan — the GTX 1650 takes both, with the Vulkan result being the more decisive. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 33042 against the Radeon R7 350's 7057 represents a 368.2% advantage, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers roughly 4.7 times the compute throughput in that API workload. The OpenCL gap is similarly lopsided, with 29629 versus 7792, a 280.2% difference.

The Radeon R7 350, by contrast, has no benchmark wins in the data. Its only two recorded scores are those same Geekbench tests, and it loses both. This is not a case of one card winning in certain workloads while the other takes different ones; the GTX 1650 is categorically faster in every measured scenario. The practical implication is that for any user choosing between these two based on raw performance, the GTX 1650 is the only rational pick. The R7 350's role is limited to scenarios where its lower power draw or smaller physical footprint might matter more than compute performance.

# Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and process nodes, which explains much of the performance gap. The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip built on Turing architecture, fabricated at 12 nm by TSMC. It packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The R7 350 uses the Cape Verde chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on an older 28 nm process. It contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2M per mm². The newer process node gives the GTX 1650 nearly double the transistor density, which is a fundamental advantage in compute capability per square millimeter.

The GPU core configurations diverge sharply. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. The R7 350 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That means the NVIDIA card has 75% more shading units, 75% more TMUs, and double the ROP count. These are not marginal differences; they translate directly into higher pixel throughput (53.28 GPixel/s versus 12.80 GPixel/s) and texture throughput (93.24 GTexel/s versus 25.60 GTexel/s). The FP32 compute rating is 2.984 TFLOPS for the GTX 1650 versus 819.2 GFLOPS for the R7 350 — a factor of 3.6.

Memory is another differentiator. The GTX 1650 ships with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus but only achieves 72.00 GB/s due to a lower memory clock (1125 MHz versus 2001 MHz, or 4.5 Gbps effective versus 8 Gbps effective). The GTX 1650 also supports FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the R7 350 lists no FP16 capability at all.

API support differs as well. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 350 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. OpenGL 4.6 is common to both. The newer API versions on the NVIDIA card can matter for compatibility with recent games and compute workloads.

# FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, while the AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425. The GTX 1650 leads by 0.6% in this aggregate metric.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 in Vulkan compute?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 1650 scores 33042 versus the R7 350's 7057, a 368.2% advantage. This is the largest single-test gap between the two cards.

Q: Do both cards occupy the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are at the 40th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Despite the large head-to-head deltas, they rank similarly overall because the GTX 1650's nearest rivals include the R7 350 and other cards within a narrow band.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher power consumption?

A: The GTX 1650 has a TDP of 75 W, while the R7 350 is rated at 55 W. Both use no external power connectors and suggest a 250 W power supply.

Q: What process nodes are used for each chip?

A: The GTX 1650 uses a 12 nm TSMC process, while the R7 350 uses a 28 nm TSMC process. This contributes to the GTX 1650's higher transistor density of 23.5M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm².

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 | AMD Radeon R7 350 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | TU117 | Cape Verde |

| Architecture | Turing | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 16 | Pirate Islands (R7 300) |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.1 GB/s | 72.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 896 | 512 |

| TMUs | 56 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 53.28 GPixel/s | 12.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 93.24 GTexel/s | 25.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.984 TFLOPS | 819.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 75 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 229 mm (9 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | Not specified |

| Width | 35 mm (1.4 inches) | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2019-04-22 | 2016-07-05 |

| Launch MSRP | 149 USD | Not specified |

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmark tests both cards share are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the GTX 1650 dominates both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 scores 29629 against the R7 350's 7792, giving a delta of 280.2%. This means the NVIDIA card is nearly four times faster in OpenCL compute. The result aligns with the raw specifications: the GTX 1650's FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS is 3.6 times the R7 350's 819.2 GFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth is 1.8 times higher.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even larger gap. The GTX 1650 reaches 33042, while the R7 350 manages 7057 — a 368.2% delta. This near-quadrupling of performance suggests the GTX 1650's newer Turing architecture handles Vulkan's low-level compute and draw calls far more efficiently than GCN 1.0. The R7 350's older Vulkan 1.2.170 support versus the GTX 1650's Vulkan 1.4 could also contribute, though driver optimizations likely play a role.

The wins count is 2 for the GTX 1650 and 0 for the R7 350 in the head-to-head data. There are no tests where the R7 350 comes out ahead. Even the average benchmark scores, which include additional tests for the GTX 1650 (3DMark Steel Nomad, various Passmark tests), show the GTX 1650 at 7472 versus 7425 for the R7 350. That 0.6% aggregate difference is small, but it masks the fact that the GTX 1650's additional tests — like the Passmark G3D score of 7880 — are well above the R7 350's range.

# The Verdict

The data is decisive: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior graphics card in every measured dimension. It wins both shared benchmarks by margins of 280.2% and 368.2%, offers 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB, delivers 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth versus 72.00 GB/s, and has more than triple the FP32 compute throughput. If the choice is between these two cards and raw performance matters, the GTX 1650 is the only option.

The R7 350's case rests entirely on its physical and power characteristics. It draws 55 W versus 75 W, fits in a single slot instead of dual-slot, and measures only 168 mm in length compared to 229 mm. For a compact system with tight power constraints, the R7 350 could be the better fit even at a significant performance cost. However, the GTX 1650 also requires no external power connectors and suggests the same 250 W PSU, so the power difference is not a barrier to adoption in most systems.

Users who prioritize compute performance, modern API support (Vulkan 1.4, DirectX 12_1), or higher memory capacity should select the GTX 1650 without hesitation. Its launch MSRP was 149 USD, and it remains end-of-life like the R7 350, but its architectural advantages are substantial. The R7 350, released in 2016, is better suited to legacy systems or low-profile builds where its single-slot design and lower TDP are the deciding factors. For anyone else, the GTX 1650's benchmark dominance makes it the clear verdict from the data.