AMD Radeon R9 Nano vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
The Radeon R9 Nano has 27% better performance than the GeForce GTX 1650 for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
The GeForce GTX 1650 has 244% better value for the money than the Radeon R9 Nano for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
Summary
About the AMD Radeon R9 Nano GPU
The Radeon R9 Nano is an end-of-life desktop graphics card by AMD. It launched in Q3 2015 with a suggested retail price of $649. Its Fiji chip that powers the GPU uses the GCN 3.0 architecture and is fabricated on the 28 nm process.
This GPU is paired with 4 GB of HBM VRAM. Its 500 MHz memory clock and 4,096 bit interface gives it a bandwidth of 512 Gb/s. This impacts how much data it can store, and how fast it transfers the data to and from memory.
The R9 Nano is a dual slot graphics card, taking up 2 PCIe slots. It supports HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort 1.2 display ports. This desktop card has a TDP of 175 W. AMD recommends using a power supply of at least 450 W with this card. A power supply lower than this might result in system crashes and potentially damage your hardware.
The Radeon R9 Nano has the 131st highest 3DMark 11 Performance GPU score among the 540 benchmarked GPUs in our database. It achieves 16.47% of the performance of the best benchmarked GPU, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090. Its 17,282 score and $649 launch price (MSRP) gives it a performance per dollar of 26.63. This is the 80th best in value for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
About the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 GPU
The GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop graphics card by NVIDIA. It launched in Q2 2019 with a suggested retail price of $149. Its TU117 chip that powers the GPU uses the Turing architecture and is fabricated on the 12 nm process.
This GPU is paired with 4 GB of GDDR5 VRAM. Its 2,001 MHz memory clock and 128 bit interface gives it a bandwidth of 128.1 Gb/s. This impacts how much data it can store, and how fast it transfers the data to and from memory.
The GTX 1650 is a dual slot graphics card, taking up 2 PCIe slots. It supports DVI, HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.4a display ports. This desktop card has a TDP of 75 W. NVIDIA recommends using a power supply of at least 250 W with this card. A power supply lower than this might result in system crashes and potentially damage your hardware.
The GeForce GTX 1650 has the 148th highest 3DMark 11 Performance GPU score among the 540 benchmarked GPUs in our database. It achieves 13.00% 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 23rd 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 Nano | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | AMD | NVIDIA |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Turing |
| Market Segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release Date | Q3 2015 | Q2 2019 |
| Launch Price (MSRP) | $649 | $149 |
| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |
| Shop | Check Price | Check Price |
Gaming Performance
Select a game to compare FPS metrics
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 Nano | 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 | -- | -- |
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.
| 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.
| 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
The Radeon R9 Nano has 27% better performance than the GeForce GTX 1650 for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
The Radeon R9 Nano is ranked 131st with a score of 17,282, and the GeForce GTX 1650 is ranked 148th with a score of 13,645.
The GeForce GTX 1650 has 244% better value for the money than the Radeon R9 Nano for the 3DMark 11 Performance GPU benchmark.
The Radeon R9 Nano is ranked 80th with a performance per dollar of 26.63, and the GeForce GTX 1650 is ranked 23rd 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.
| GPU | Benchmark Performance | |
|---|---|---|
| GeForce GTX 980 | 17,604.5 | +2% |
| Radeon R9 FURY | 17,543 | +2% |
| GeForce GTX 1060 (6 GB) | 17,401 | +1% |
| Radeon R9 Nano | 17,282 | |
| Radeon R9 290X | 16,167.5 | -6% |
| GeForce GTX 970 | 16,033 | -7% |
| GeForce GTX 780 Ti | 15,619 | -10% |
| GeForce GTX 1650 | 13,645 | -21% |
| Radeon R9 380 | 12,191 | -29% |
| Radeon R9 280X | 10,792 | -38% |
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.
| GPU | Performance Per Dollar | |
|---|---|---|
| GeForce GTX 1660 | 96.49 | +262% |
| GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER | 95.99 | +260% |
| GeForce GTX 1650 | 91.58 | +244% |
| Radeon RX 590 | 83.74 | +214% |
| GeForce GTX 1050 | 78.63 | +195% |
| Radeon R9 290X | 29.45 | +11% |
| GeForce GTX 660 Ti | 28.14 | +6% |
| Radeon R9 Nano | 26.63 | |
| GeForce GTX 780 Ti | 22.34 | -16% |
| GeForce GTX 680 | 20.47 | -23% |
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 Nano | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 3DMark Time Spy Graphics | 4,511 (+28.45%) | 3,512 |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 4,556 (+17.45%) | 3,879 |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Graphics | 81,374 (+60.98%) | 50,549 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Standard Graphics | 14,362 (+56.06%) | 9,203 |
| 3DMark Night Raid Graphics | -- | 44,051.5 |
| 3DMark 11 Performance Score | 14,793 (+6.47%) | 13,894 |
| Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64 Bit | -- | 174.5 |
| PassMark G3D Mark | -- | 7,881 |
| PassMark G2D Mark | -- | 576 |
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 Nano | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Codename | Fiji | TU117 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Turing |
| Process Size | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Transistors | 8,900 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 Nano | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Memory Size | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | HBM | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 512 Gb/s | 128.1 Gb/s |
| Memory Clock | 500 MHz | 2,001 MHz |
| Memory Interface | 4,096 bit | 128 bit |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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 Nano | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Slots | 2 slots | 2 slots |
| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 175 W | 75 W |
| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 250 W |
| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | -- |
| Outputs | 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 Nano | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Stream Processors (SP) | 4,096 | -- |
| CUDA Cores | -- | 896 |
| Compute Units (CU) | 64 | -- |
| Stream Multiprocessors (SM) | -- | 14 |
| Texture Mapping Units (TMU) | 256 | 56 |
| Render Output Units (ROP) | 64 | 32 |
| Core Clock Speed | 1,000 MHz | 1,485 MHz |
| Core Clock Speed (Boost) | -- | 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 Nano | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Pixel Fill Rate | 64 GPixel/s | 53.28 GPixel/s |
| Texture Fill Rate | 256 GTexel/s | 93.24 GTexel/s |
| FP32 Performance | 8.19 TFLOPS | 2.98 TFLOPS |
| FP64 Performance | 512 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 Nano | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.7 |
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.