
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon Pro 5700 XT
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 $351 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $500 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 112.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 24.9 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $500 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 130W, a 55W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 12,442).
- ❌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 5700 XT
2020Why buy it
- ✅+58.1% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅300% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (16 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌235.6% HIGHER MSRP$500 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 24.9 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($500 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌73.3% higher power demand at 130W vs 75W.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon Pro 5700 XT
2020Why buy it
- ✅Costs $351 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $500 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 112.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 24.9 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $500 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 130W, a 55W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅+58.1% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅300% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (16 GB vs 4 GB).
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 12,442).
- ❌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
- ❌235.6% HIGHER MSRP$500 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 24.9 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($500 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌73.3% higher power demand at 130W vs 75W.
Quick Answers
So, is Radeon Pro 5700 XT 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 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 240 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 227 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 189 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 150 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 222 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 188 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 145 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 116 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 117 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 98 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 71 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 64 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 231 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 193 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 147 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 111 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 150 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 125 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 99 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 75 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 79 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 66 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 55 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 41 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 560 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 448 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 373 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 280 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 420 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 336 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 280 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 210 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 280 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 224 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 187 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 140 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 383 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 329 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 276 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 217 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 305 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 265 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 206 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 157 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 164 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 131 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 118 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 95 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon Pro 5700 XT

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 5700 XT
Radeon Pro 5700 XT
The Radeon Pro 5700 XT is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 4 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1243 MHz to 1499 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 130W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,442 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon Pro 5700 XT's 12,442 — the Radeon Pro 5700 XT leads by 58.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon Pro 5700 XT uses RDNA 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,560 (Radeon Pro 5700 XT). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7.675 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 5700 XT). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1499 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 12,442+58% |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2560+186% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 7.675 TFLOPS+157% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+11% | 1499 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 160+186% |
| 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 5700 XT relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 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 5700 XT has 16 GB. The Radeon Pro 5700 XT 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 5700 XT) — the Radeon Pro 5700 XT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| 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 (12_1) (Radeon Pro 5700 XT). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 6.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 6+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs RDNA 1.0 (Radeon Pro 5700 XT). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs Unified Video Decoder 7.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Radeon Pro 5700 XT).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | RDNA 1.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | Unified Video Decoder 7.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,HEVC,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon Pro 5700 XT's 130W — a 53.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Radeon Pro 5700 XT). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-42% | 130W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-40% | 500W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-7% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+10% | 95.7 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon Pro 5700 XT launched at $500. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 70.2% less ($351 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 24.9 (Radeon Pro 5700 XT) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 112% better value. The Radeon Pro 5700 XT is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro 5700 XT |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-70% | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+112% | 24.9 |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 10 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | August 4 2020 |
| Ranking | #323 | #215 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













