
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon PRO W7500
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 $280 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $429 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 70.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 31.0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $429 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon PRO W7500 across 49 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 W7500
2023Why buy it
- ✅76.1% more average FPS across 49 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 3.0 (2022−2026) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅Measures 216mm instead of 229mm, a 13mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌187.9% HIGHER MSRP$429 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 31.0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($429 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon PRO W7500
2023Why buy it
- ✅Costs $280 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $429 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 70.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 31.0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $429 MSRP).
Why buy it
- ✅76.1% more average FPS across 49 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 3.0 (2022−2026) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
- ✅Measures 216mm instead of 229mm, a 13mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon PRO W7500 across 49 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
- ❌187.9% HIGHER MSRP$429 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 31.0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($429 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is Radeon PRO W7500 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 W7500 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 136 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 119 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 104 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 85 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 122 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 101 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 86 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 73 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 66 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 58 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 40 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 34 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W7500 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 339 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 284 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 224 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 174 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 212 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 179 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 142 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 114 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 99 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 83 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 69 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 53 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W7500 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 598 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 479 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 399 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 299 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 414 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 356 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 291 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 224 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 299 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 239 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 187 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 141 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W7500 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 522 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 453 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 386 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 299 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 425 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 359 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 298 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 224 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 267 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 239 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 199 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 150 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon PRO W7500

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 W7500
Radeon PRO W7500
The Radeon PRO W7500 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 3 2023. It features the RDNA 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1500 MHz to 1700 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 70W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 28 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 13,298 points. Launch price was $429.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon PRO W7500's 13,298 — the Radeon PRO W7500 leads by 69%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon PRO W7500 uses RDNA 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,792 (Radeon PRO W7500). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.19 TFLOPS (Radeon PRO W7500). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1700 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W7500 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 13,298+69% |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 3.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 1792+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 12.19 TFLOPS+309% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 1700 MHz+2% |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 112+100% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+75% | 512 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 W7500 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W7500 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 W7500 has 8 GB. The Radeon PRO W7500 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 W7500) — the Radeon PRO W7500 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W7500 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 W7500). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W7500 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| 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 VCN 4.0 (Radeon PRO W7500). 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 W7500).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W7500 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 W7500's 70W — a 6.9% difference. The Radeon PRO W7500 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Radeon PRO W7500). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 216mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W7500 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 70W-7% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-40% | 500W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 216mm |
| Height | 111mm | 115mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-7% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 190.0+81% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon PRO W7500 launched at $429. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 65.3% less ($280 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 31.0 (Radeon PRO W7500) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 70.3% better value. The Radeon PRO W7500 is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W7500 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-65% | $429 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+70% | 31.0 |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 33 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | August 3 2023 |
| Ranking | #323 | #192 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













