AMD Radeon R9 M275X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and AMD Radeon R9 M275X represent two very different eras of mobile and desktop graphics. The GTX 1650 SUPER, built on Turing architecture, is a modern entry-level card, while the R9 M275X is a legacy GCN 1.0 part from early 2014. The benchmark data shows a complete generational shift, with the NVIDIA card dominating in every measured test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head benchmark results paint an unambiguous picture of performance superiority for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 points against the R9 M275X's 11,200 points. This represents a delta of 291.7%, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers nearly four times the raw compute performance in this API. The margin is even more staggering in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50,519 points versus 9,964 points for the AMD part, a delta of 407%. This is not a close competition; it is a complete rout across both API workloads.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the GTX 1650 SUPER maintains a substantial lead with an average score of 11,047 compared to the R9 M275X's 10,582. This translates to a roughly 4.4% advantage for the NVIDIA card in aggregate performance across all available tests. The percentile rankings are close — the GTX 1650 SUPER sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the R9 M275X sits at the 49th — but the raw score gap in the head-to-head tests shows that the newer architecture is fundamentally more capable per unit of work.

The R9 M275X has no winning benchmark in this comparison. For every test where both cards have data, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the victor. The NVIDIA card's nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon RX 550 with an average score of 11,075, show that the GTX 1650 SUPER is competitive within its own generation, trailing by only -0.2% in that comparison. In contrast, the R9 M275X's closest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 550X, posts an average score of 10,481, which is 1% below the M275X. This positioning confirms that the M275X is not just slower than the GTX 1650 SUPER; it is also at the lower end of its own performance tier.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50,519 points, which is 407% higher than the R9 M275X's 9,964 points in the same test.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11,047, while the R9 M275X averages 10,582. The NVIDIA card holds a lead of approximately 4.4% in this aggregate metric.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R9 M275X win any of the head-to-head tests?

A: No. The data shows 2 wins for the GTX 1650 SUPER and 0 wins for the R9 M275X across the available head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: How do the two cards compare in percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER sits at the 50th percentile, while the R9 M275X sits at the 49th percentile. Despite the close percentile ranking, the absolute score gap in the head-to-head tests is enormous.

Q: What is the delta in the Geekbench OpenCL test between the two cards?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms the R9 M275X by 291.7% in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 43,875 versus 11,200.

Q: Which card has a higher single-test score in any benchmark?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has the highest single-test score of the two, with 50,519 points in Geekbench Vulkan. The R9 M275X's highest score is 11,200 in Geekbench OpenCL.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior product in every measurable way. Anyone choosing between these two cards should select the GTX 1650 SUPER without hesitation. The 407% lead in Vulkan and 291.7% lead in OpenCL are not incremental improvements; they represent a multi-generational leap in capability. The R9 M275X, with its 2 GB memory and GCN 1.0 architecture, is simply outclassed by the 4 GB GDDR6-equipped Turing card.

The GTX 1650 SUPER's average score of 11,047 places it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, making it a middle-of-the-road performer in the broader market. However, against the R9 M275X, which averages 10,582, the NVIDIA card is decisively faster. The R9 M275X's performance is so far behind that it fails to win a single head-to-head test. For any workload — compute, gaming, or general GPU acceleration — the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only rational choice based on this data.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every fundamental specification. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses a 12 nm process node, while the R9 M275X is built on a 28 nm node. The NVIDIA chip, TU116, contains 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, whereas the AMD Venus chip has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 23.2M per mm² for the GTX 1650 SUPER versus 12.2M per mm² for the R9 M275X.

Clock speeds differ substantially: the GTX 1650 SUPER runs at a base of 1530 MHz and boosts to 1725 MHz, while the R9 M275X operates at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. Memory configurations are also divergent, with the GTX 1650 SUPER offering 4 GB of GDDR6 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus the R9 M275X's 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Memory bandwidth follows suit: 192.0 GB/s for the NVIDIA card versus 72.00 GB/s for the AMD part.

The compute resources are heavily stacked in NVIDIA's favor. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R9 M275X has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs — exactly half in each category. Pixel rate is 55.20 GPixel/s for the GTX 1650 SUPER versus 14.80 GPixel/s for the R9 M275X, and texture rate is 138.0 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 4.416 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS for the AMD card.

The GTX 1650 SUPER also carries a 100 W TDP, a dual-slot design, and a 1x 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The R9 M275X has no listed TDP, slot width, power connector, or suggested PSU. The NVIDIA card measures 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width; the AMD card has no listed dimensions. Display outputs on the GTX 1650 SUPER include 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a; the R9 M275X has no listed display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two cards is as wide as the performance gap. The GTX 1650 SUPER is based on NVIDIA's Turing architecture, a design that brought significant improvements in efficiency and feature support over previous generations. The R9 M275X, by contrast, uses AMD's Graphics Core Next 1.0 architecture, the original GCN design that debuted years earlier. Turing supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. GCN 1.0 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170 — a lower DirectX feature level and an older Vulkan version.

The GTX 1650 SUPER's Turing architecture also supports FP16 computation at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 8.832 TFLOPS of half-precision performance. The R9 M275X has no listed FP16 capability, making it effectively a single-precision-only part. This is a meaningful difference for workloads that can leverage mixed-precision computing. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both are limited to traditional rasterization and compute workloads.

The R9 M275X is part of AMD's "Gem System (R9 M200)" generation, with a predecessor listed as "Solar System" and a successor of "Polaris Mobile." The GTX 1650 SUPER belongs to the GeForce 16 generation, succeeding the GeForce 10 series and preceding the GeForce 20 series. The release dates reflect the generational gap: the GTX 1650 SUPER was released on 2019-11-21, while the R9 M275X was released on 2014-01-27. Both are end-of-life products, but the NVIDIA card is nearly six years newer.

The transistor count difference — 6,600 million versus 1,500 million — is the most telling architectural indicator. The GTX 1650 SUPER packs over four times the transistors of the R9 M275X, despite having a die that is only about 2.3 times larger. This density advantage, enabled by the 12 nm process versus 28 nm, directly translates to the massive performance deltas observed in the benchmarks. The R9 M275X is a product of an older design philosophy; the GTX 1650 SUPER benefits from a more mature, denser, and more capable architecture that leaves no area of performance uncontested.