AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon R9 M265X compare to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 in raw compute performance?

A: The GeForce GTX 1650 delivers roughly 3.7 times the FP32 throughput of the Radeon R9 M265X. The NVIDIA part reaches 2.984 TFLOPS while the AMD chip manages 800.0 GFLOPS. This is the single largest performance gap between the two cards.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is decisively ahead. It achieves 53.28 GPixel/s compared to just 10.00 GPixel/s for the AMD Radeon R9 M265X. That is more than a five-fold advantage in pixel throughput, reflecting the NVIDIA part's higher clock speeds and double the ROP count.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M265X has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus width, but its memory runs at a higher effective speed, resulting in 128.1 GB/s. The NVIDIA card offers double the capacity and double the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is more efficient in terms of transistor density?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 uses a 12 nm process from TSMC and packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, giving a density of 23.5M per mm². The AMD Radeon R9 M265X is built on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2M per mm². The NVIDIA chip is roughly 93% denser.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The database shows the AMD Radeon R9 M265X with an average benchmark score of 8851, placing it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has an average score of 7472, which puts it in the 40th percentile. This is a case where the aggregate score does not reflect the large single-test disparity.

Q: Which card supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.4 compared to Vulkan 1.2.170 for the AMD part.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior product in virtually every measurable category. Anyone choosing between these two cards should select the NVIDIA part without hesitation, provided the system can accommodate its 75 W TDP and 229 mm length.

For gamers and users running compute workloads, the GeForce GTX 1650 is the only sensible choice. Its compute advantage is overwhelming. In the single shared benchmark test, Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA card scores 29629 against the AMD card's 8851, a difference of 70.1% in NVIDIA's favor. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X, with its 2 GB frame buffer and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, is simply outclassed for modern workloads.

The AMD card's only potential appeal is its age. It was released in March 2014, over five years before the GeForce GTX 1650's April 2019 launch. For legacy systems with limited power delivery, the AMD part's unspecified TDP might be easier to accommodate, but the database shows no power draw figure for the R9 M265X. The GeForce GTX 1650 explicitly requires a 250 W suggested PSU and uses no external power connectors.

In terms of API support, the NVIDIA card is more future-proof. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. The newer API levels on the NVIDIA card mean better compatibility with modern game engines and compute frameworks.

The verdict is straightforward: the GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear winner. The Radeon R9 M265X is an end-of-life product from an older generation, and its benchmark results confirm it is no longer competitive.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains only one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The results are stark. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 29629, while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8851. The delta percentage is 70.1% in favor of NVIDIA. This means the GTX 1650 delivers more than three times the OpenCL compute performance of the R9 M265X.

To contextualize the R9 M265X's score, the database shows its nearest rivals in average benchmark score. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 8863, just 0.1% higher. The AMD Radeon 550X scores 8918, 0.8% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile scores 8746, which is 1.2% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 scores 8743, also 1.2% lower. The R9 M265X sits squarely in this performance band, clustering around the 8800-point mark.

For the GeForce GTX 1650, its average benchmark score of 7472 places it among a different set of rivals. The AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7447, just 0.3% lower. The Intel UHD Graphics 750 scores 7441, 0.4% lower. The AMD Radeon R7 350 scores 7425, 0.6% lower. The Intel Arc A310 scores 7550, which is 1% higher. The GTX 1650's average score is dragged down by its other benchmark results, particularly the low PassMark scores for older DirectX versions.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the GTX 1650, the data shows a mixed profile. It scores 33042 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is even higher than its OpenCL result. In PassMark G3D, it scores 7880. In PassMark GPU Compute, it scores 3048. The older DirectX tests show lower numbers: 124 in PassMark DirectX 9, 58 in DirectX 11, 39 in DirectX 10, and 35 in DirectX 12. The G2D score is 561.

The R9 M265X has only the single Geekbench OpenCL result in the database, so its full performance profile is less documented. What the data does show is that in the one test where both cards appear, the NVIDIA part is dramatically faster.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA card has 40% more shading units, 40% more TMUs, and double the ROPs.

Clock speeds are another major differentiator. The GTX 1650 runs at a base clock of 1485 MHz and boosts to 1665 MHz. The R9 M265X runs at a base of 575 MHz and boosts to 625 MHz. The NVIDIA card's clocks are nearly 2.6 times higher at base and 2.7 times higher at boost.

Memory capacity and bandwidth favor NVIDIA. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M265X has 2 GB of GDDR5 with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but the NVIDIA card's memory runs at 8 Gbps effective versus 4 Gbps effective for the AMD part.

Texture and pixel rates follow the same pattern. The GTX 1650 achieves 93.24 GTexel/s and 53.28 GPixel/s. The R9 M265X manages 25.00 GTexel/s and 10.00 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA card is 3.7 times faster in texturing and 5.3 times faster in pixel processing.

Power and physical specifications are only documented for the NVIDIA card. The GTX 1650 has a 75 W TDP, a dual-slot cooler, no external power connectors, a suggested 250 W PSU, and measures 229 mm by 111 mm by 35 mm. It has display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The R9 M265X has no listed TDP, slot width, power connectors, suggested PSU, dimensions, or display outputs in the database.

The NVIDIA card's launch MSRP was 149 USD. The AMD card has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Venus chip. It belongs to the Gem System (R9 M200) generation and was released in March 2014. Its predecessor was Solar System, and its successor was Polaris Mobile.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing architecture with the TU117 chip. It is part of the GeForce 16 generation, following the GeForce 10 series and preceding the GeForce 20 series. It was released in April 2019.

Manufacturing processes differ significantly. The AMD card uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the NVIDIA card uses a 12 nm process, also from TSMC. The transistor counts reflect this: the R9 M265X has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the GTX 1650 has 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. Transistor density is 12.2M per mm² for AMD and 23.5M per mm² for NVIDIA.

The memory subsystems differ in capacity and speed, though both use GDDR5. The AMD card has 2 GB at 4 Gbps effective, while the NVIDIA card has 4 GB at 8 Gbps effective. Both use a 128-bit bus interface.

API support shows the generational gap. The R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card also has FP16 support at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1 rate), while the AMD card has no listed FP16 capability.

The NVIDIA card's bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16, matching the AMD card. Both are marked as end-of-life in production status. The AMD card's compute capabilities are limited to FP32 at 800.0 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA card reaches 2.984 TFLOPS FP32. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores listed in the database.