Graphics Card Comparison

GTX 1650 Super Max-Q vs R7 260X

Verdict
GTX 1650 Super Max-Q vs R7 260X: GTX 1650 Super Max-Q is faster for gaming

Head-to-head specifications

MetricGTX 1650 Super Max-QR7 260XDifference
3DMark Time Spy1,081689+56.9%
Avg FPS @ 1080p2724+12.5%
Avg FPS @ 1440p1412+16.7%
Avg FPS @ 4K76+16.7%
FP32 compute (TFLOPS)3.12.0+56.9%
VRAM4 GB GDDR62 GB GDDR5
Memory bandwidth (GB/s)224112+100.0%
TDP (W)45115
  • GTX 1650 Super Max-Q averages 14 fps at 1440p versus 12 fps — about 17% faster.
  • GTX 1650 Super Max-Q draws less power (45W vs 115W).

Verdict: GTX 1650 Super Max-Q or R7 260X?

Our recommendation
GTX 1650 Super Max-Q is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter.

GTX 1650 Super Max-Q advantages

  • 1440p gaming (+14%)
  • 4K gaming (+14%)
  • Synthetic benchmark performance (+36%)
  • Video memory (+50%)
  • Memory bandwidth (+50%)
  • Power efficiency (+61%)

R7 260X advantages

  • No decisive advantage on the tracked metrics.

Which should you choose?

  • Choose the GTX 1650 Super Max-Q if you game at 1440p.
  • Choose the GTX 1650 Super Max-Q if you game at 4K or drive a high-resolution display.

GTX 1650 Super Max-Q vs R7 260X: which should you choose?

GTX 1650 Super Max-Q — NVIDIA laptop graphics card (2019, Turing) with 4 GB of GDDR6, averaging 14 fps at 1440p.

R7 260X — AMD desktop graphics card (2013, GCN 2.0) with 2 GB of GDDR5, averaging 12 fps at 1440p; launched at $139.

GTX 1650 Super Max-Q vs R7 260X: GTX 1650 Super Max-Q is faster for gaming. GTX 1650 Super Max-Q averages 14 fps at 1440p versus 12 fps — about 17% faster. GTX 1650 Super Max-Q draws less power (45W vs 115W).

1080p, 1440p and 4K

At 1440p — the most common enthusiast resolution — the GTX 1650 Super Max-Q averages 14 fps against 12. At 4K (7 vs 6 fps) VRAM (4GB vs 2GB) and memory bandwidth matter more.

Power and value

Board power is 45 W versus 115 W, which affects PSU headroom, case cooling and noise.

The verdict

Both are credible choices in the graphics card comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.

Frequently asked questions

Is the GTX 1650 Super Max-Q better than the R7 260X?

GTX 1650 Super Max-Q is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter. GTX 1650 Super Max-Q averages 14 fps at 1440p versus 12 fps — about 17% faster.

What is the main difference between the GTX 1650 Super Max-Q and the R7 260X?

GTX 1650 Super Max-Q averages 14 fps at 1440p versus 12 fps — about 17% faster. GTX 1650 Super Max-Q draws less power (45W vs 115W).

Which should I choose?

Choose the GTX 1650 Super Max-Q if you game at 1440p. Choose the GTX 1650 Super Max-Q if you game at 4K or drive a high-resolution display.

Methodology

Graphics cards are compared on 3DMark Time Spy scores, average gaming frame rates at 1080p/1440p/4K, FP32 compute throughput, VRAM capacity and type, memory bandwidth, board power (TDP) and launch MSRP — plus AI workload throughput (Stable Diffusion iterations/s and local LLM tokens/s) where measured. Vintage and server GPUs without modern benchmark results are compared on specifications only, clearly labelled. Frame rates are averages across a game suite at high settings; specific titles vary.

ER
EquivalentTo Research
Data & Benchmarks Team

We compile published benchmark results (Cinebench 2024, Geekbench 6, AnTuTu v10, 3DMark), manufacturer specifications and market pricing from nine regions into normalized, comparable datasets. Every figure traces to a named public source listed on each page.

Benchmark leaderboard compilationMulti-market pricing normalizationUnit & currency conversion
✓ Reviewed by EquivalentTo Editorial Review, Data Quality & Methodology.
Last updated 2026-07-01
GTX 1650 Super Max-Q profile → R7 260X profile → Compare something else

Related comparisons