
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon Pro W5700
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 $650 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 193.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 18.0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 205W, a 130W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon Pro W5700 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌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 W5700
2019Why buy it
- ✅52.2% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌436.2% HIGHER MSRP$799 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 18.0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($799 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌173.3% higher power demand at 205W vs 75W.
- ❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon Pro W5700
2019Why buy it
- ✅Costs $650 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 193.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 18.0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $799 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 205W, a 130W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Why buy it
- ✅52.2% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon Pro W5700 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌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
- ❌436.2% HIGHER MSRP$799 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 18.0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($799 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌173.3% higher power demand at 205W vs 75W.
- ❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.
Quick Answers
So, is Radeon Pro W5700 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 W5700 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 150 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 132 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 113 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 95 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 127 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 104 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 88 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 76 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 74 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 62 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 47 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 41 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 226 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 190 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 138 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 99 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 146 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 122 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 93 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 67 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 78 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 66 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 54 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 39 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 647 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 518 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 431 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 324 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 485 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 388 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 324 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 243 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 324 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 259 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 216 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 162 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 332 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 284 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 235 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 196 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 275 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 236 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 181 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 146 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 147 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 116 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 101 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 84 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon Pro W5700

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 W5700
Radeon Pro W5700
The Radeon Pro W5700 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 19 2019. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1243 MHz to 1930 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 205W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 14,380 points. Launch price was $799.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon Pro W5700's 14,380 — the Radeon Pro W5700 leads by 82.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon Pro W5700 uses RDNA 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,304 (Radeon Pro W5700). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8.893 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro W5700). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1930 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 14,380+83% |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2304+157% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 8.893 TFLOPS+198% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 1930 MHz+16% |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 144+157% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
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 W5700 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 W5700 has 8 GB. The Radeon Pro W5700 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Radeon Pro W5700) — the Radeon Pro W5700 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.0 (Radeon Pro W5700). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 6.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+27% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 6+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCN 2.0 (Radeon Pro W5700). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 2.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,H.265,VP9 (Radeon Pro W5700).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCN 2.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | VCN 2.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,H.265,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon Pro W5700's 205W — a 92.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Radeon Pro W5700). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-63% | 205W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-40% | 500W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-18% | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+50% | 70.1 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon Pro W5700 launched at $799. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 81.4% less ($650 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 18.0 (Radeon Pro W5700) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 193.3% better value.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-81% | $799 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+193% | 18.0 |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 10 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | November 19 2019 |
| Ranking | #323 | #163 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













