
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon Pro W5700X
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 $850 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 199.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 17.6 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 205W, a 130W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 305mm, a 76mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon Pro W5700X across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 16 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 W5700X
2019Why buy it
- ✅71.1% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅300% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (16 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌570.5% HIGHER MSRP$999 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 17.6 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($999 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌173.3% higher power demand at 205W vs 75W.
- ❌33.2% longer card at 305mm vs 229mm.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon Pro W5700X
2019Why buy it
- ✅Costs $850 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 199.9% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 17.6 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 205W, a 130W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 305mm, a 76mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Why buy it
- ✅71.1% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅300% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (16 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon Pro W5700X across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 16 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
- ❌570.5% HIGHER MSRP$999 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 17.6 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($999 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌173.3% higher power demand at 205W vs 75W.
- ❌33.2% longer card at 305mm vs 229mm.
Quick Answers
So, is Radeon Pro W5700X 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 W5700X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 198 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 182 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 157 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 139 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 183 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 153 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 124 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 110 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 115 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 96 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 72 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 66 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 254 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 213 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 156 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 116 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 164 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 139 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 109 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 82 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 81 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 69 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 57 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 42 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 778 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 624 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 528 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 396 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 594 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 475 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 396 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 297 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 396 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 314 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 249 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 198 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700X |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 390 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 341 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 292 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 234 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 316 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 276 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 226 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 179 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 197 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 182 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 150 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 125 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon Pro W5700X

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 W5700X
Radeon Pro W5700X
The Radeon Pro W5700X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 11 2019. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1243 MHz to 2040 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 205W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 17,591 points. Launch price was $999.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon Pro W5700X's 17,591 — the Radeon Pro W5700X leads by 123.5%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon Pro W5700X uses RDNA 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,304 (Radeon Pro W5700X). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 9.4 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro W5700X). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2040 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700X |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 17,591+124% |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2304+157% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 9.4 TFLOPS+215% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2040 MHz+23% |
| 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 W5700X relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700X |
|---|---|---|
| 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 W5700X has 16 GB. The Radeon Pro W5700X offers 300% 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 W5700X) — the Radeon Pro W5700X has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700X |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 16 GB+300% |
| 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 W5700X). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 6.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700X |
|---|---|---|
| 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 W5700X). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 2.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs HEVC,H.264 (Radeon Pro W5700X).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700X |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCN 2.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | VCN 2.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | HEVC,H.264 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon Pro W5700X's 205W — a 92.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 650W (Radeon Pro W5700X). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 305mm, occupying 2 vs 4 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700X |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-63% | 205W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-54% | 650W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 305mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2-50% | 4 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-18% | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+22% | 85.8 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon Pro W5700X launched at $999. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 85.1% less ($850 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 17.6 (Radeon Pro W5700X) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 200% better value.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro W5700X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-85% | $999 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+200% | 17.6 |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 10 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | December 11 2019 |
| Ranking | #323 | #130 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













