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

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $80 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $229 MSRP).
✅Delivers 43.5% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 36.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $229 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
❌50% higher power demand at 75W vs 50W.
❌36.3% longer card at 229mm vs 168mm.

Radeon PRO W6400

2022

Why buy it

✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 50W instead of 75W, a 25W reduction.
✅Measures 168mm instead of 229mm, a 61mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌
53.7% HIGHER MSRP
$229 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 36.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($229 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon PRO W6400

2022

Why buy it

✅Costs $80 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $229 MSRP).
✅Delivers 43.5% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 36.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $229 MSRP).

Why buy it

✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 50W instead of 75W, a 25W reduction.
✅Measures 168mm instead of 229mm, a 61mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
❌50% higher power demand at 75W vs 50W.
❌36.3% longer card at 229mm vs 168mm.

Trade-offs

❌
53.7% HIGHER MSRP
$229 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 36.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($229 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon PRO W6400 better than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 7,869 vs 8,428 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer Radeon PRO W6400 is the overall package: you are getting a newer generation, FSR upscaling, plus much lower power draw (50W vs 75W).

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Radeon PRO W6400 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2022 generation instead of 2019, better upscaling support with FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 (2025) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack, and a 6nm process instead of 12nm. That broader feature stack should age better as more games lean on modern upscaling and frame-generation support.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

GeForce GTX 1650 can still make sense if you find it at the right price, especially around $149 MSRP. Radeon PRO W6400 is still the smarter buy for most people, though, because the raw performance is close while the overall package is cleaner. Radeon PRO W6400 is about 53.7% more expensive on MSRP at $229 MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 7.1% higher G3D Mark. Moving to $229 MSRP gets you newer hardware, lower power draw (50W vs 75W), and FSR upscaling.

Is GeForce GTX 1650 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is still a strong gaming card in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. Price is really the swing factor here. If you find it at or below $149 MSRP, it remains a very sensible buy. Radeon PRO W6400 is still the safer recommendation for most fresh builds because it offers a cleaner overall package with newer hardware and FSR upscaling.

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.

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Radeon PRO W6400 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
1080p
low	94 FPS	132 FPS
medium	83 FPS	118 FPS
high	70 FPS	101 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	75 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	118 FPS
medium	74 FPS	100 FPS
high	60 FPS	83 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	62 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	49 FPS
medium	39 FPS	46 FPS
high	27 FPS	34 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	30 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon PRO W6400

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
1080p
low	136 FPS	169 FPS
medium	113 FPS	134 FPS
high	94 FPS	99 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	66 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	110 FPS
medium	62 FPS	86 FPS
high	44 FPS	64 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	46 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	57 FPS
medium	27 FPS	44 FPS
high	21 FPS	35 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	22 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon PRO W6400

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
1080p
low	323 FPS	377 FPS
medium	283 FPS	303 FPS
high	205 FPS	249 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	190 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	265 FPS
medium	202 FPS	228 FPS
high	151 FPS	186 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	142 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	155 FPS
medium	117 FPS	143 FPS
high	79 FPS	102 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	70 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon PRO W6400

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
1080p
low	261 FPS	285 FPS
medium	211 FPS	206 FPS
high	191 FPS	180 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	146 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	210 FPS
medium	158 FPS	149 FPS
high	135 FPS	132 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	104 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	105 FPS
medium	74 FPS	76 FPS
high	65 FPS	67 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	51 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon PRO W6400

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon PRO W6400

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 W6400

The Radeon PRO W6400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 19 2022. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2331 MHz to 2331 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,428 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon PRO W6400's 8,428 — the Radeon PRO W6400 leads by 7.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon PRO W6400 uses RDNA 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 768 (Radeon PRO W6400). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3.58 TFLOPS (Radeon PRO W6400). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2331 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
G3D Mark Score	7,869	8,428+7%
Architecture	Turing	RDNA 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	6 nm
Shading Units	896+17%	768
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	3.58 TFLOPS+20%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz	2331 MHz+40%
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	56+17%	48
L1 Cache	896 KB+250%	256 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

✨

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 W6400 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
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 256-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (Radeon PRO W6400). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
DirectX	12	12.2+2%
Vulkan	1.4+17%	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3+50%	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCN 3.0 (Radeon PRO W6400). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 3.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (Radeon PRO W6400).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCN 3.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	VCN 3.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode)

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon PRO W6400's 50W — a 40% difference. The Radeon PRO W6400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Radeon PRO W6400). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 168mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 70°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
TDP	75W	50W-33%
Recommended PSU	300W-40%	500W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	168mm
Height	111mm	69mm
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	70°C	70°C
Perf/Watt	104.9	168.6+61%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon PRO W6400 launched at $229. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 34.9% less ($80 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 36.8 (Radeon PRO W6400) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 43.5% better value. The Radeon PRO W6400 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2019).