In Battlefield 6, the Radeon R9 Nano is quite a bit faster than the GeForce GTX 1650. We cannot compare value as at least one GPU is out of stock.
Radeon R9 Nano
- Up to 35% faster in Battlefield 6 – 27 vs 20 FPS
- Up to 35% faster in Battlefield 6
GeForce GTX 1650
- Is 3 years and 7 months newer – Apr 23, 2019 vs Aug 27, 2015
- Is 3 years and 7 months newer
- Consumes up to 57% less energy – 75 vs 175 Watts
- Consumes up to 57% less energy
Battlefield 6 FPS Calculator
Radeon R9 Nano vs GeForce GTX 1650: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
GeForce GTX 1650
Apr 23rd, 2019
Average FPS
20 FPS
74%
Min 1% FPS
15 FPS
75%
Price, $
$249.99
100%
Value, $/FPS
$12.49/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
Radeon R9 Nano vs GeForce GTX 1650: Comparison of synthetic benchmarks
Performance Specifications
Radeon R9 Nano vs GeForce GTX 1650: Comparison of core performance specifications
Radeon R9 Nano
Aug 27th, 2015
Memory
4 GB
100%
Memory Bandwidth
512 GB/s
100%
Pixel Fillrate
64 GPixel/s
100%
Texture Fillrate
256 GTexel/s
100%
FP32
8.192 TFLOPS
100%
GeForce GTX 1650
Apr 23rd, 2019
Memory
4 GB
100%
Memory Bandwidth
128.1 GB/s
25%
Pixel Fillrate
53.28 GPixel/s
83%
Texture Fillrate
93.24 GTexel/s
36%
FP32
2.984 TFLOPS
36%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Radeon R9 Nano Aug 27th, 2015 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | GeForce GTX 1650 Apr 23rd, 2019 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Aug 27th, 2015 | Released | Apr 23rd, 2019 |
| $649.00 | MSRP | $149.00 |
| Pirate Islands (R9 300) | Generation | GeForce 16 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 175 W | Power Consumption | 75 W |
