
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon PRO V710
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 $1,851 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $2,000 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 780.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 6.0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $2,000 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 158W, a 83W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 12,000).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Radeon PRO V710
2024Why buy it
- ✅+52.5% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌1242.3% HIGHER MSRP$2,000 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 6.0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($2,000 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌110.7% higher power demand at 158W vs 75W.
- ❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon PRO V710
2024Why buy it
- ✅Costs $1,851 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $2,000 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 780.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 6.0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $2,000 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 158W, a 83W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Why buy it
- ✅+52.5% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 12,000).
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Trade-offs
- ❌1242.3% HIGHER MSRP$2,000 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 6.0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($2,000 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌110.7% higher power demand at 158W vs 75W.
- ❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.
Quick Answers
So, is Radeon PRO V710 better than GeForce GTX 1650?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is GeForce GTX 1650 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 V710 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 215 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 196 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 170 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 130 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 180 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 146 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 125 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 102 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 96 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 81 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 64 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 56 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO V710 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 509 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 414 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 327 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 270 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 338 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 269 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 221 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 185 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 157 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 130 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 108 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 87 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO V710 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 540 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 432 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 360 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 270 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 405 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 324 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 270 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 202 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 270 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 216 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 180 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 135 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO V710 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 540 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 432 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 360 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 270 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 405 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 324 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 270 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 202 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 270 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 216 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 180 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 135 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon PRO V710

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 V710
Radeon PRO V710
The Radeon PRO V710 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 3 2024. It features the RDNA 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1900 MHz to 2000 MHz. It has 3456 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 158W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 54 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,000 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon PRO V710's 12,000 — the Radeon PRO V710 leads by 52.5%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon PRO V710 uses RDNA 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3,456 (Radeon PRO V710). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 27.65 TFLOPS (Radeon PRO V710). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2000 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO V710 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 12,000+52% |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 3.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 3456+286% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 27.65 TFLOPS+827% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2000 MHz+20% |
| ROPs | 32 | 96+200% |
| TMUs | 56 | 216+286% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+17% | 768 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 V710 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO V710 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon PRO V710 has 8 GB. The Radeon PRO V710 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Radeon PRO V710) — the Radeon PRO V710 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO V710 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (Radeon PRO V710). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO V710 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCN 4.0 (Radeon PRO V710). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Radeon PRO V710).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO V710 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCN 4.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | VCN 4.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon PRO V710's 158W — a 71.2% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Radeon PRO V710). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO V710 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-53% | 158W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-40% | 500W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+38% | 75.9 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon PRO V710 launched at $2000. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 92.5% less ($1851 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 6.0 (Radeon PRO V710) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 780% better value. The Radeon PRO V710 is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO V710 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-93% | $2000 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+780% | 6.0 |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 32 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | October 3 2024 |
| Ranking | #323 | #196 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













