NVIDIA logo
Buy on Amazon logo
$249
New
VS
AMD logo

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 295X2, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce GTX 1650
8
4GB , 75W
Radeon R9 295X2 +10%
9
8GB , 500W

Radeon R9 295X2 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Summary

We compared two graphics cards: the GeForce GTX 1650 with 4GB VRAM (Turing architecture), against the Radeon R9 295X2 with 8GB VRAM. Both graphics cards offer competitive value for their respective price points. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient, consuming 75W compared to 500W. On this page, you will find detailed benchmark comparisons, technical specifications, value score analysis, and key differences to help you choose the right graphics card for your needs and budget.

Key Differences

An overview of the main advantages of each graphics card

Reasons to consider the GeForce GTX 1650

85% lower power consumption (75W versus 500W)

Reasons to consider the Radeon R9 295X2

10% higher 3DMark score (3,910 versus 3,552)
100% more VRAM: 8GB versus 4GB

Benchmarks

Performance comparison across 1 common benchmarks

3DMark synthetic

GeForce GTX 1650
3,552
Radeon R9 295X2
+10%
3,910

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side hardware comparison

Specification GeForce GTX 1650 Radeon R9 295X2
Architecture Turing N/A
VRAM Size 4 GB 8 GB
TDP 75W 500W
Current Price $249
New • Amazon
N/A

Conclusion

For energy efficiency and lower power consumption, the GeForce GTX 1650 is the better choice. If you plan to game at higher resolutions or use VRAM-intensive applications, the Radeon R9 295X2 with 8GB VRAM provides more headroom. Both graphics cards have their strengths, so choose based on your specific gaming needs, budget constraints, and performance requirements.