AMD Radeon R7 M380 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER compare to the AMD Radeon R7 M380 in overall benchmark scores?

A: The database shows a large gap. The GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11047, while the R7 M380 scores 9313. The GTX 1650 SUPER is 371.1% ahead in the single head-to-head test recorded (Geekbench OpenCL).

Q: Which GPU is ranked higher among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M380 is at the 46th percentile. This means the GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms a larger share of the GPU population than the R7 M380.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card according to the database?

A: For the GTX 1650 SUPER, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 550 with an average score of 11075, just 0.2% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 trails by 1.5%. For the R7 M380, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M is the closest match at 9302, only 0.1% behind, followed by the GTX 465 and GTX 960.

Q: Do both cards support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, but with differences. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R7 M380 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: What is the release timeline for these two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M380 was released on May 4, 2015. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER launched much later, on November 21, 2019. Both are now marked as end-of-life products.

Q: Which card has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a memory bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s, while the R7 M380 has only 32.00 GB/s. This is a six-fold difference, directly impacting performance in memory-intensive workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER uses the TU116 chip built on the Turing architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 12 nm process. It integrates 6,600 million transistors on a die size of 284 mm², giving a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². The AMD Radeon R7 M380 uses the Tropo chip based on GCN 1.0, also from TSMC but on an older 28 nm node. It packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 12.2M per mm².

The core configuration differs sharply. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The R7 M380 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, exactly half in each category. Neither card includes ray tracing or tensor cores. This means the NVIDIA card has double the raw processing resources across the board.

Clock speeds also favor NVIDIA. The GTX 1650 SUPER runs at a base of 1530 MHz and boosts to 1725 MHz. The R7 M380 runs at 900 MHz base and 915 MHz boost, roughly 40% lower. The combination of more cores and higher clocks leads to dramatically different compute rates: the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 4.416 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the R7 M380 delivers 1,171.2 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA card also has FP16 support at 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the AMD card has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with memory running at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), yielding 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M380 also has 4 GB, but it is DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, clocked at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), resulting in only 32.00 GB/s. The memory type alone explains a large portion of the performance gap in memory-bound scenarios.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same trend. The GTX 1650 SUPER achieves 55.20 GPixel/s and 138.0 GTexel/s. The R7 M380 achieves 14.64 GPixel/s and 36.60 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA card is roughly 3.8 times faster in both metrics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains only one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43875, while the AMD Radeon R7 M380 scores 9313. The delta is 371.1% in favor of NVIDIA. This is not a marginal win; it is a dominant, multi-generational leap.

To put that in context, the R7 M380's nearest rivals in the database are the GTX 850M, GTX 465, GTX 960, and Vega 8, all scoring between 9221 and 9302. The GTX 1650 SUPER, meanwhile, sits near the RX 550 and RTX PRO 6000 series Max-Q variants, with average scores around 11075 to 11088. The gap between the two cards is roughly the same as the gap between the R7 M380 and a card that is 371% faster, which is an enormous spread in real-world terms.

The GTX 1650 SUPER also wins the only recorded benchmark in the head-to-head list, giving it 1 win against 0 for the R7 M380. The result is consistent with the architectural analysis: double the shading units, double the TMUs, double the ROPs, higher clocks, and vastly faster memory all point to the same conclusion.

The OpenCL score is particularly relevant because it exercises both compute and memory subsystems. The R7 M380's DDR3 memory at 32 GB/s becomes a severe bottleneck in such workloads, while the GDDR6 at 192 GB/s gives the GTX 1650 SUPER ample headroom. The 371.1% delta is not an anomaly; it reflects the fundamental hardware differences.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | AMD Radeon R7 M380 |

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

| Architecture | Turing | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,600 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 284 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.2M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1530 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1725 MHz | 915 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | DDR3 |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 32.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 640 |

| TMUs | 80 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 55.20 GPixel/s | 14.64 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 138.0 GTexel/s | 36.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.416 TFLOPS | 1,171.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) | null |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| TDP | 100 W | null |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | null |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | null |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | null |

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

| Dimensions | 229 mm (9 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height, 35 mm (1.4 inches) width | null |

| Release Date | 2019-11-21 | 2015-05-04 |

| Launch MSRP | 159 USD | null |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the faster GPU by every measurable metric in the database. It wins the only direct benchmark by 371.1%, and its average benchmark score of 11047 versus 9313 places it in a different performance tier. The R7 M380's closest rivals are all in the 9200 to 9300 range, while the GTX 1650 SUPER competes with cards averaging above 11000.

For a builder choosing between these two today, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear pick for any task that relies on GPU compute, gaming, or general 3D acceleration. The R7 M380, released in 2015, is a legacy mobile-oriented part. Its GCN 1.0 architecture, DDR3 memory, and half the shading units make it unsuitable for modern workloads that the GTX 1650 SUPER handles with ease.

The only scenario where the R7 M380 makes sense is if you already own it and are not upgrading. But for a new purchase, the GTX 1650 SUPER offers a launch MSRP of 159 USD, a 100 W TDP, and a dual-slot cooler that fits in standard cases. The R7 M380 has no listed TDP, no slot width, no power connector, and no display outputs in the database, which suggests it was designed for OEM laptops or prebuilt systems rather than DIY builds.

The percentile ranking confirms the verdict: 50th percentile versus 46th percentile. While both are mid-pack, the GTX 1650 SUPER sits above the median, while the R7 M380 sits just below it. The performance gap between the two is far larger than the percentile gap suggests, because the R7 M380's nearest rivals are all clustered within 1% of its score, whereas the GTX 1650 SUPER has a much wider spread of competitors above it.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins in every recorded benchmark category. The single head-to-head result in Geekbench OpenCL shows a 371.1% advantage. The card also leads in all derived metrics: pixel rate (55.20 GPixel/s vs 14.64 GPixel/s), texture rate (138.0 GTexel/s vs 36.60 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute (4.416 TFLOPS vs 1,171.2 GFLOPS). It has double the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, plus a 6x memory bandwidth advantage.

For gaming at 1080p, the GTX 1650 SUPER's 4 GB of GDDR6 and 192 GB/s bandwidth will handle modern titles at medium to high settings. The R7 M380's 32 GB/s bandwidth would choke on anything beyond light or older games. For compute tasks like OpenCL workloads, the NVIDIA card is in a completely different league.

AMD Radeon R7 M380 wins in exactly one area: it does not exist in the database with any power or physical specifications. It has no TDP, no slot width, no power connectors, no display outputs, and no dimensions listed. This makes it a poor candidate for a desktop build. However, if the use case is a legacy laptop where the GPU is already soldered in, it remains functional for basic desktop, video playback, and very light 3D acceleration.

The R7 M380's advantage is its low transistor count of 1,500 million on a 123 mm² die, which implies lower manufacturing complexity and potentially lower power draw, though no TDP is recorded. It also supports OpenGL 4.6, matching the NVIDIA card, and its DirectX 12 (11_1) support, while lower than the GTX 1650 SUPER's 12_1, is sufficient for many older DirectX 11 titles.

In practice, the only realistic use case for the R7 M380 is as an integrated or mobile GPU in a pre-existing system. For anyone building or upgrading a desktop, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only sensible choice based on the recorded data. The benchmark scores, architectural differences, and specification gaps all point in one direction.