AMD Radeon R7 M370 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and AMD Radeon R7 M370 represent two very different eras of mobile and desktop graphics. The data shows a decisive performance gap, with the GTX 1650 winning both shared benchmark tests by margins that are difficult to overstate. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1650 scores 29,629 points against the R7 M370’s 7,063, a delta of 319.5%. The Vulkan gap is even wider: 33,042 versus 6,465, which translates to a 411.1% advantage for the NVIDIA part. These are not incremental improvements; they represent a generational chasm in compute capability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmarks shared between these GPUs are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 dominates both. In OpenCL, the GTX 1650’s score of 29,629 is roughly four times higher than the R7 M370’s 7,063. The deltaPct of 319.5% means the NVIDIA card is over three times faster in raw compute throughput. This is a massive differential, suggesting that any workload leveraging OpenCL—such as video encoding, physics simulations, or general-purpose GPU compute—will see a transformative uplift on the GTX 1650.

The Vulkan test tells an even more dramatic story. The GTX 1650 posts 33,042 points, while the R7 M370 manages just 6,465. The 411.1% delta is staggering, indicating that the NVIDIA architecture handles modern graphics APIs with far greater efficiency. Vulkan is a low-overhead API designed to extract maximum performance from the hardware, and the GTX 1650’s Turing architecture clearly exploits it far better than the older GCN 1.0 design in the R7 M370. For gaming or compute tasks that leverage Vulkan, the GTX 1650 is not just faster—it is in a different league entirely.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the GTX 1650’s average benchmark score is 7,472, placing it at the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, +0.3%), Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441, +0.4%), and AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425, +0.6%). It trails the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, -1%) by a slim margin. In contrast, the R7 M370’s average score is 6,764, sitting at the 38th percentile. Its closest competitors are the AMD FirePro M5100 (6,830, -1%), NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6,698, +1%), AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6,612, +2.3%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6,946, -2.6%). The GTX 1650 sits in a higher performance tier entirely, with an average score that is 708 points (about 10.5%) above the R7 M370.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is profound. The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip built on NVIDIA’s Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The R7 M370, by contrast, uses the Litho chip based on the much older GCN 1.0 architecture, on a 28 nm process. It contains just 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The GTX 1650 has nearly five times the transistor count and nearly three times the die area, which explains its overwhelming performance advantage.

Core configurations differ massively. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines. The R7 M370 has only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is roughly 2.3 times more shaders, 2.3 times more TMUs, and 4 times more ROPs on the NVIDIA side. These numbers directly translate to pixel and texture throughput: the GTX 1650 achieves 53.28 GPixel/s pixel rate and 93.24 GTexel/s texture rate, while the R7 M370 manages only 7.680 GPixel/s and 23.04 GTexel/s. The GTX 1650 is nearly 7 times faster on pixel fill and 4 times faster on texture fill.

Memory is another critical differentiator. The GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M370 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but at a much lower effective clock speed of 3.6 Gbps, yielding just 57.60 GB/s. The GTX 1650 more than doubles the memory bandwidth, which is crucial for modern textures and high-resolution rendering. Additionally, the GTX 1650’s memory runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) compared to the R7 M370’s 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The GTX 1650 also supports FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the R7 M370 has no FP16 data listed. FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS versus 737.3 GFLOPS—a fourfold difference.

The GTX 1650 also has a more modern feature set. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 M370 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version on the GTX 1650 mean better support for advanced rendering techniques and optimizations. The GTX 1650 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the R7 M370 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8, halving the available bandwidth to the host system.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is vastly superior to the AMD Radeon R7 M370 in every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 319.5% and 411.1%, and its average benchmark score of 7,472 is significantly higher than the R7 M370’s 6,764. The GTX 1650 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 40 versus 38, meaning it outperforms more of the GPU population. For anyone choosing between these two, the GTX 1650 is the only rational pick for performance-oriented tasks.

The R7 M370’s only potential advantage is its smaller size and lower power footprint, though the fact pack does not list a TDP for it. The GTX 1650 is rated at 75 W with no external power connectors, suggesting it is a modestly powered card. The R7 M370, being a mobile-oriented chip from 2015, likely consumes less, but the performance penalty is so severe that this advantage is negligible for desktop use. The GTX 1650 was released on April 22, 2019, with a launch MSRP of 149 USD, while the R7 M370 launched on May 4, 2015. The GTX 1650 is also end-of-life, as is the R7 M370, but its newer architecture guarantees better driver support and feature compatibility.

FAQ

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

A: The GTX 1650 scores 29,629 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 319.5% higher than the R7 M370’s 7,063. This means it is roughly four times faster in OpenCL workloads.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 1650 has 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, while the R7 M370 has 57.60 GB/s. The NVIDIA card offers more than double the memory throughput.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4,700 million transistors, while the R7 M370 has 950 million. This is a 4.95x difference in transistor count, reflecting the newer and more complex Turing architecture.

Q: Does the R7 M370 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, it supports Vulkan version 1.2.170. However, the GTX 1650 supports a newer Vulkan 1.4, which offers better performance and features.

Q: What are the pixel rates of these GPUs?

A: The GTX 1650 achieves 53.28 GPixel/s, while the R7 M370 manages only 7.680 GPixel/s. The GTX 1650 is nearly 7 times faster in pixel fill rate.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, compared to the R7 M370’s 384. This is a 2.33x difference in shader count.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins in every category where data exists. It dominates in raw compute (OpenCL and Vulkan), memory bandwidth (128.1 GB/s versus 57.60 GB/s), pixel throughput (53.28 GPixel/s versus 7.680 GPixel/s), and texture rate (93.24 GTexel/s versus 23.04 GTexel/s). It also has a larger frame buffer (4 GB versus 2 GB), which is essential for modern games at higher resolutions or with high-resolution texture packs. The GTX 1650 is the clear choice for gaming, 3D rendering, video editing, or any GPU-accelerated workload.

The AMD Radeon R7 M370 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its only conceivable advantages are its smaller die size (77 mm² versus 200 mm²) and lower transistor count, which might suggest lower power consumption. However, the fact pack lists no TDP for the R7 M370, so this cannot be quantified. For legacy systems or very low-power applications where the performance deficit is acceptable, the R7 M370 might still function, but it is not a competitive option against the GTX 1650. The R7 M370’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6,698, +1%) and AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6,612, +2.3%), indicating it sits in a performance tier that is far below the GTX 1650’s neighborhood.

Specification Differences

The GTX 1650 and R7 M370 differ in nearly every specification field. The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip on a 12 nm process, while the R7 M370 uses the Litho chip on a 28 nm process. Transistor count is 4,700 million versus 950 million, and die size is 200 mm² versus 77 mm². The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the R7 M370 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Base clock is 1485 MHz versus 875 MHz, and boost clock is 1665 MHz versus 960 MHz. Memory size is 4 GB versus 2 GB, with bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s versus 57.60 GB/s. FP32 compute is 2.984 TFLOPS versus 737.3 GFLOPS. The GTX 1650 has a TDP of 75 W, while the R7 M370 has no TDP listed. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M370 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 1650 has display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the R7 M370 has none listed. The GTX 1650 also has dimensions (229 mm length, 111 mm height, 35 mm width), while the R7 M370 has none listed. Finally, the GTX 1650 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD, while the R7 M370 has no MSRP listed.