Contents:HighlightsSummaryGaming PerformanceBenchmark PerformanceTechnical SpecsRelated ComparisonsRelated GPUs
Performance
Radeon R9 280X
10,79210% of 104,598
GeForce GTX 165026% better
13,64513% of 104,598
The GeForce GTX 1650 has 26% better performance than the Radeon R9 280X for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
Performance per dollar
Radeon R9 280X
36.0922% of 161.45
GeForce GTX 1650154% better
91.5857% of 161.45
The GeForce GTX 1650 has 154% better value for the money than the Radeon R9 280X for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
Shop Radeon R9 280X
Shop GeForce GTX 1650
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Summary
#
About the AMD Radeon R9 280X GPU
The AMD Radeon R9 280X is an end-of-life desktop graphics card that released in Q4 2013 with a MSRP of $299. It is built on the GCN 1.0 GPU microarchitecture (codename Tahiti) and is manufactured on a 28 nm process.
Memory
The R9 280X has 3 GB of GDDR5 memory, with a 1,500 MHz memory clock and a 384 bit interface. This gives it a memory bandwidth of 288 Gb/s, which affects how fast it can transfer data to and from memory. GPU memory stores temporary data that helps the GPU with complex math and graphics operations. More memory is generally better, as not having enough can cause performance bottlenecks.
Cores and Clock Speeds
The R9 280X includes 2,048 stream processors (SPs), the processing units for handling parallel computing tasks. The GPU operates at a core clock speed of 850 MHz and can dynamically boost its clock speed up to 1,000 MHz. Complementing the processing units are 128 texture mapping units (TMUs) for efficient texture filtering and 32 render output units (ROPs) for pixel processing.
Compatibility & Power Consumption
The R9 280X occupies 2 PCIe expansion slots. It supports DVI, HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2 display connections. AMD recommends a power supply of at least 600 W to handle the GPU's thermal design power (TDP) of 250 W.
Benchmark Performance & Value
The R9 280X has the 171st best 3DMark 11 Performance GPU score among the 543 benchmarked GPUs in our database. It achieves 10.32% of the performance of the best benchmarked GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090. Its 10,792 score and $299 launch price (MSRP) gives it a performance per dollar of 36.09. This is the 73rd best in value for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
About the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 GPU
The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop graphics card that launched in Q2 2019 with a MSRP of $149. It is built on the Turing GPU microarchitecture (codename TU117) and is manufactured on a 12 nm process.
Memory
The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, with a 2,001 MHz memory clock and a 128 bit interface. This gives it a memory bandwidth of 128.1 Gb/s, which affects how fast it can transfer data to and from memory. GPU memory stores temporary data that helps the GPU with complex math and graphics operations. More memory is generally better, as not having enough can cause performance bottlenecks.
Cores and Clock Speeds
The GTX 1650 includes 896 CUDA cores, the processing units for handling parallel computing tasks. The GPU operates at a core clock speed of 1,485 MHz and can dynamically boost its clock speed up to 1,665 MHz. Complementing the processing units are 56 texture mapping units (TMUs) for efficient texture filtering and 32 render output units (ROPs) for pixel processing.
Compatibility & Power Consumption
The GTX 1650 occupies 2 PCIe expansion slots. It supports DVI, HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.4a display connections. NVIDIA recommends a power supply of at least 250 W to handle the GPU's thermal design power (TDP) of 75 W.
Benchmark Performance & Value
The GTX 1650 has the 151st best 3DMark 11 Performance GPU score among the 543 benchmarked GPUs in our database. It achieves 13.05% of the performance of the best benchmarked GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090. Its 13,645 score and $149 launch price (MSRP) gives it a performance per dollar of 91.58. This is the 24th best in value for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
General Info
General overview of the GPU, including details like its manufacturer, release date, launch price, and current production status.
| Info | Radeon R9 280X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | AMD | NVIDIA |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Turing |
| Market Segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release Date | Q4 2013 | Q2 2019 |
| Launch Price (MSRP) | $299 | $149 |
| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |
| Shop | Check Price | Check Price |
Gaming Performance
#
Select a game to compare FPS metrics
Riders Republic
Far Cry 6
Forza Horizon 5
Guardians of the Galaxy
Back 4 Blood
Alan Wake Remastered
New World
FPS Benchmarks
This table showcases the average frame rate (FPS) achieved both GPUs in at various resolutions. Frame rate is a crucial indicator of how smoothly the GPU can run the game. A higher FPS generally translates to a smoother gameplay experience.
- Frames Per Second
Riders Republic | Radeon R9 280X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Low - 720p | -- | 120 FPS |
| Medium - 1080p | -- | 60 FPS |
| High - 1080p | -- | 46 FPS |
| Ultra - 1080p | -- | 41 FPS |
| QHD - 1440p | -- | 27 FPS |
| 4K UHD - 2160p | -- | -- |
FPS Source: Notebookcheck
Compare Frames Per Second (FPS)
The average frame rate (FPS) in can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative performance. Generally, higher FPS results in a smoother gameplay experience.
Choose Baseline GPU:Radeon R9 280X orGeForce GTX 1650
| GPU | Frames Per Second | |
|---|---|---|
| GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | 45 | +67% |
| Radeon RX 5500 XT | 43 | +59% |
| GeForce GTX 1660 | 40 | +48% |
| GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | 34 | +26% |
| GeForce GTX 1650 | 27 | |
| Radeon RX 6500 XT | 27 | +0% |
Compare Cost Per Frame
The average cost per frame in can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative value. Generally, a lower cost per frame implies better value for your money.
Choose Baseline GPU:Radeon R9 280X orGeForce GTX 1650
| GPU | Cost Per Frame | |
|---|---|---|
| Radeon RX 5500 XT | 3.93 | -29% |
| GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | 4.68 | -15% |
| GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | 5.09 | -8% |
| GeForce GTX 1660 | 5.48 | -1% |
| GeForce GTX 1650 | 5.52 | |
| Radeon RX 6500 XT | 7.37 | +34% |
Benchmark Performance
#
Performance
Radeon R9 280X
10,79210% of 104,598
GeForce GTX 165026% better
13,64513% of 104,598
The GeForce GTX 1650 has 26% better performance than the Radeon R9 280X for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
The Radeon R9 280X is ranked 171st with a score of 10,792, and the GeForce GTX 1650 is ranked 151st with a score of 13,645.
Performance per dollar
Radeon R9 280X
36.0922% of 161.45
GeForce GTX 1650154% better
91.5857% of 161.45
The GeForce GTX 1650 has 154% better value for the money than the Radeon R9 280X for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
The Radeon R9 280X is ranked 73rd with a performance per dollar of 36.09, and the GeForce GTX 1650 is ranked 24th with a performance per dollar of 91.58.
Relative Performance
The average score in the benchmark test can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative performance. Generally, powerful GPUs tend to have higher scores.
Choose Baseline GPU:Radeon R9 280X or
| GPU | Benchmark Performance | |
|---|---|---|
| Radeon R9 Nano | 17,282 | +60% |
| Radeon R9 290X | 16,167.5 | +50% |
| GeForce GTX 970 | 16,033 | +49% |
| GeForce GTX 780 Ti | 15,619 | +45% |
| GeForce GTX 1650 | 13,645 | +26% |
| Radeon R9 380 | 12,191 | +13% |
| Radeon R9 280X | 10,792 | |
| GeForce GTX 960 | 10,767.5 | -0% |
| GeForce GTX 680 | 10,216.5 | -5% |
| GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | 9,453 | -12% |
Relative Value For Money
The average performance per dollar in the benchmark test can be compared to similar GPUs to assess relative value. A higher score implies a better value for your money.
Choose Baseline GPU:Radeon R9 280X or
| GPU | Performance Per Dollar | |
|---|---|---|
| GeForce GTX 1660 | 96.18 | +166% |
| GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | 95.98 | +166% |
| GeForce GTX 1650 | 91.58 | +154% |
| Radeon RX 590 | 83.74 | +132% |
| GeForce GTX 1050 | 78.63 | +118% |
| Radeon R9 390X | 41.83 | +16% |
| GeForce GTX 750 Ti | 36.09 | +0% |
| Radeon R9 280X | 36.09 | |
| GeForce GTX 980 | 32.07 | -11% |
| GeForce GTX 760 | 31.98 | -11% |
Benchmark Scores
This table showcases the average performance scores achieved by both GPUs across industry-standard benchmark tests. These scores provide a valuable insight into overall performance. Powerful GPUs tend to have higher scores.
- Popular
| Benchmark | Radeon R9 280X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 3DMark Time Spy Graphics | 2,210 | 3,512 (+58.91%) |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 2,393 | 3,879 (+62.1%) |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Graphics | 52,117 (+3.1%) | 50,549 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Standard Graphics | 8,343 | 9,203 (+10.31%) |
| 3DMark Night Raid Graphics | -- | 44,051.5 |
| 3DMark 11 Performance Score | 10,241 | 13,894 (+35.67%) |
| Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64 Bit | -- | 174.5 |
| PassMark G3D Mark | 6,178 | 7,874 (+27.45%) |
| PassMark G2D Mark | 686 (+18.28%) | 580 |
| Unigine Heaven 3.0 DirectX 11 | 95.2 | -- |
Benchmarks Source: Notebookcheck
Technical Specs
#
Graphics Processor
General information about the graphics processing unit like their architecture, manufacturing process size, and transistor count. Newer GPU architectures generally bring efficiency improvements and may introduce technologies that enhance graphical capabilities.
| Spec | Radeon R9 280X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Codename | Tahiti | TU117 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Turing |
| Process Size | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Transistors | 4,313 million | 4,700 million |
Memory Details
Memory specifications like their capacity, bandwidth, and clock speeds. GPU memory stores graphics data like frames, textures, and shadows which helps display rendered images. These specs are crucial for graphics-intense applications like gaming and 3D modeling.
| Spec | Radeon R9 280X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Memory Size | 3 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 288 Gb/s | 128.1 Gb/s |
| Memory Clock | 1,500 MHz | 2,001 MHz |
| Memory Interface | 384 bit | 128 bit |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 1,024 KB |
Board Compatibility
Compatibility information like their slot size, bus interface, power consumption, and display support. These specs are useful for verifying compatibility with your motherboard, power supply, and monitor.
| Spec | Radeon R9 280X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Slots | 2 slots | 2 slots |
| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 W | 75 W |
| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 250 W |
| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | -- |
| Outputs | DVI, HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2 | DVI, HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.4a |
Cores & Clock Speeds
Processing power information like its cores and clock speed. These specs impact how fast they can process graphics. Each type of core or component serves a specific computational purpose.
| Spec | Radeon R9 280X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Stream Processors (SP) | 2,048 | -- |
| CUDA Cores | -- | 896 |
| Compute Units (CU) | 32 | -- |
| Stream Multiprocessors (SM) | -- | 14 |
| Texture Mapping Units (TMU) | 128 | 56 |
| Render Output Units (ROP) | 32 | 32 |
| Core Clock Speed | 850 MHz | 1,485 MHz |
| Core Clock Speed (Boost) | 1,000 MHz | 1,665 MHz |
Theoretical Performance
Theoretical performance numbers derived from the raw specifications of the different components like core count and clock speeds. While these provide a glimpse into peak processing power, they do not represent real-world performance.
| Spec | Radeon R9 280X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Pixel Fill Rate | 32 GPixel/s | 53.28 GPixel/s |
| Texture Fill Rate | 128 GTexel/s | 93.24 GTexel/s |
| FP32 Performance | 4.1 TFLOPS | 2.98 TFLOPS |
| FP64 Performance | 1,024 GFLOPS | 93.24 GFLOPS |
API Support
Graphics API versions supported by these graphics cards. APIs evolve over time, introducing new features and functionalities. Older GPUs may not support recent versions.
| Spec | Radeon R9 280X | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 2.1 (1.2) | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 (5.1) | 6.8 |
Check out these comparisons for similar GPUs:
Looking for alternatives? Check out these similar GPUs:
* Performance rating, performance per dollar, and rankings are based on the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark and MSRP.