
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon Pro 580
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Why buy it
- ✅Costs $351 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $500 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 240.6% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 15.5 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $500 MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon Pro 580: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon Pro 580 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 150W, a 75W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon Pro 580 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Radeon Pro 580
2017Why buy it
- ✅5.3% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌235.6% HIGHER MSRP$500 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 15.5 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($500 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌100% higher power demand at 150W vs 75W.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon Pro 580
2017Why buy it
- ✅Costs $351 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $500 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 240.6% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 15.5 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $500 MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon Pro 580: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon Pro 580 is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 150W, a 75W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅5.3% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon Pro 580 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌235.6% HIGHER MSRP$500 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 15.5 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($500 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌100% higher power demand at 150W vs 75W.
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon Pro 580?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Radeon Pro 580 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?
Games Benchmarks
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 580 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 81 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 69 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 58 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 38 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 71 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 62 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 46 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 29 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 25 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 24 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 16 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 14 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 580 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 184 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 159 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 127 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 101 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 132 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 109 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 89 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 69 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 71 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 61 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 50 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 37 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 580 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 349 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 279 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 233 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 174 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 262 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 209 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 174 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 131 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 174 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 140 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 116 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 87 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 580 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 162 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 134 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 116 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 99 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 119 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 100 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 87 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 73 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 67 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 54 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 42 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 33 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon Pro 580

GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650
The GeForce GTX 1650 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1485 MHz to 1665 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,869 points. Launch price was $149.

Radeon Pro 580
Radeon Pro 580
The Radeon Pro 580 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 5 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1100 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,753 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 and the Radeon Pro 580 reaches 7,753 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon Pro 580 uses GCN 4.0, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,304 (Radeon Pro 580). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.53 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 580). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1200 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 580 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+1% | 7,753 |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2304+157% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 5.53 TFLOPS+85% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+39% | 1200 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 144+157% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+56% | 576 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce GTX 1650 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Radeon Pro 580 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 580 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Radeon Pro 580) — the Radeon Pro 580 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 580 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.0 (Radeon Pro 580). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 580 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 3.4 (Radeon Pro 580). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 6.3. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Radeon Pro 580).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 580 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCE 3.4 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | UVD 6.3 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon Pro 580's 150W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon Pro 580). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 580 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-50% | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-18% | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+103% | 51.7 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon Pro 580 launched at $500. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 70.2% less ($351 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 15.5 (Radeon Pro 580) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 240.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 580 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-70% | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+241% | 15.5 |
| Codename | TU117 | Polaris 20 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | June 5 2017 |
| Ranking | #323 | #327 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













