AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is in a different performance class entirely from the AMD Radeon R9 M375, with benchmark results showing a massive generational and architectural gap. In the two shared tests, the GTX 1650 SUPER wins decisively, delivering over four times the performance in Vulkan and over three times in OpenCL, making the comparison less a rivalry and more a demonstration of how far mobile GPU technology advanced between 2015 and 2019.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data from the two overlapping benchmark suites paints a stark picture. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 points, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375 manages only 10,457 points. This translates to a delta of 319.6% in favor of the NVIDIA card. That is not a marginal improvement; the GTX 1650 SUPER is roughly 4.2 times faster in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL.

The Vulkan results are even more lopsided. The GTX 1650 SUPER posts a score of 50,519, compared to the R9 M375’s 9,682. The delta here reaches 421.8%, meaning the NVIDIA part is over five times faster in this API. Vulkan’s lower overhead tends to favor newer architectures, and the Turing-based GTX 1650 SUPER clearly exploits that advantage to a dramatic degree.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the GTX 1650 SUPER’s average benchmark score of 11,047 places it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 550, scores 11,075, a negligible 0.2% difference. The R9 M375, by contrast, has an average score of 10,070, sitting at the 48th percentile. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A at 10,273, which is 2% ahead. While the percentile ranks are close—50 versus 48—the raw scores in the shared tests show the GTX 1650 SUPER pulling far ahead, indicating the average score is pulled down by other factors not reflected in the head-to-head tests.

The Verdict

The verdict is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior GPU for any workload represented in the benchmark data. It wins both head-to-head tests with deltas of 319.6% and 421.8%. Anyone seeking modern graphics performance should choose the GTX 1650 SUPER without hesitation.

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 is an older, end-of-life part from 2015, built on a 28 nm process. Its performance is not competitive with the GTX 1650 SUPER in OpenCL or Vulkan. The data does not support any scenario where the R9 M375 is the better choice for compute or graphics tasks.

However, the R9 M375 may still be found in older laptops where it was originally integrated. In that context, it is what it is: a legacy part. But for any new purchase or upgrade decision based purely on the benchmark numbers, the GTX 1650 SUPER dominates. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has a defined launch MSRP of 159 USD, which can be stated as a reference point, though no pricing comparison is made here.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is fundamental. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER uses the TU116 chip based on the Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 6,600 million transistors onto a 284 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.2 million per square millimeter.

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 uses the Tropo chip based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on an older 28 nm process. It contains only 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The manufacturing process difference alone explains a significant portion of the performance gap, as the 12 nm node allows for much higher transistor density and efficiency.

The GTX 1650 SUPER features 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These are exactly half the counts of the NVIDIA part in each category, which correlates with the roughly half-to-one-quarter performance ratios seen in the benchmarks.

Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 1650 SUPER’s newer API support is another factor in its higher Vulkan score.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between the two cards are extensive. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1725 MHz. The R9 M375 has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1015 MHz. The NVIDIA card runs at a substantially higher frequency.

Memory is a major differentiator. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on the same 128-bit bus, but only achieves 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 6.7x difference in memory bandwidth, which heavily impacts texture-heavy and high-resolution workloads.

The GTX 1650 SUPER’s pixel rate is 55.20 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 138.0 GTexel/s. The R9 M375’s pixel rate is 16.24 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 40.60 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 4.416 TFLOPS, while the R9 M375 delivers 1,299.2 GFLOPS (approximately 1.3 TFLOPS). The GTX 1650 SUPER also supports FP16 at 8.832 TFLOPS, while the R9 M375 has no FP16 capability listed.

The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. It is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm in length. The R9 M375 has no TDP, power connector, slot width, or dimension data provided, indicating it was primarily a mobile or OEM part with flexible specifications.

Display outputs also differ: the GTX 1650 SUPER offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R9 M375 has no display output information listed. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11,047, compared to the AMD Radeon R9 M375’s 10,070.

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

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50,519 versus the R9 M375’s 9,682, a delta of 421.8% in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has 4 GB of GDDR6 with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M375 has 2 GB of DDR3 with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, both on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Do either of these GPUs support ray tracing?

A: No, neither the GTX 1650 SUPER nor the R9 M375 lists any ray tracing cores in its specifications.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER is built on TSMC’s 12 nm process, while the R9 M375 is built on TSMC’s 28 nm process.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a density of 23.2 million transistors per square millimeter, versus the R9 M375’s 12.2 million per square millimeter.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins in every measurable category from the provided data. In the two head-to-head benchmarks—Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan—it wins with deltas of 319.6% and 421.8%, respectively. Its higher shading unit count (1,280 vs 640), higher clock speeds, and vastly superior memory bandwidth make it the clear choice for any compute or graphics workload.

The GTX 1650 SUPER is positioned for modern gaming and general GPU compute, with a 50th percentile rank among all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 550, which is essentially tied at 0.2% difference, showing that the GTX 1650 SUPER sits in a competitive mid-range segment. For users running DirectX 12 (12_1) or Vulkan 1.4 applications, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the recommended part.

The AMD Radeon R9 M375, on the other hand, has no benchmark wins against the GTX 1650 SUPER. Its only comparisons in the nearestRivals list show it slightly ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M (0.3%) and AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (0.6%), but behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A (2%). The R9 M375 may be sufficient for very old or light workloads, but the data shows it is outclassed by the GTX 1650 SUPER in every shared test. Its 48th percentile rank is only slightly below the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 50th, but the actual score delta of nearly 1,000 points in average benchmarks, combined with the massive head-to-head deltas, confirms it is not a viable competitor for the same tasks.