NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs AMD Radeon R9 280X
The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and AMD Radeon R9 280X sit within a few percent of each other on our index. Treat them as equivalent in raw performance and decide on price, power draw and — for graphics cards — video memory instead.
| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 | AMD Radeon R9 280X |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | NVIDIA | AMD |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 1 |
| Relative performance index | 48 (better) | 47 |
| Video memory | 4 GB (better) | 3 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory bus | 128-bit | 384-bit (better) |
| Release year | 2019 (better) | 2013 |
| Board power | 75 W (better) | 250 W |
| Suggested PSU | 300 W (better) | 600 W |
| Hardware ray tracing | No | No |
| Upscaling support | FSR 3, XeSS | Not recorded |
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
Green marks the stronger figure for that row only — for power draw and PSU requirement, lower is treated as better. Performance indexes are CanMyPcPlay estimates; read how they are derived.
Which should you pick?
- Check video memory, not just speed. A faster card with less VRAM can perform worse in recent titles at high texture settings.
- Check power and clearance. Confirm your PSU and case can take the card — the build checker does this.
- Upscaling support differs. DLSS is NVIDIA-only; FSR and XeSS run more broadly.
Other comparisons
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs AMD Radeon 780M (integrated)
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs AMD Radeon RX 570