Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon R9 390, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Radeon R9 390 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by a moderate 12% 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 390 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 275W. 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
Reasons to consider the Radeon R9 390
Value Score Comparison
Price-to-performance value analysis
Benchmarks
Performance comparison across 1 common benchmarks
3DMark synthetic
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side hardware comparison
| Specification | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R9 390 |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Turing | N/A |
| VRAM Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| TDP | 75W | 275W |
| Current Price | $249 New • Amazon | $387 New • Amazon |
Conclusion
But if raw gaming performance and future-proofing are more important – go for the Radeon R9 390. 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 390 with 8GB VRAM provides more headroom. Budget-conscious buyers will appreciate the GeForce GTX 1650's lower 249 price point. Both graphics cards have their strengths, so choose based on your specific gaming needs, budget constraints, and performance requirements.