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 $2,050 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
✅Delivers 644.6% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 7.1 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs Unknown).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon Pro Vega II: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon Pro Vega II is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 75W instead of 475W, a 400W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 15,597).
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Radeon Pro Vega II

2019

Why buy it

✅+98.2% higher PassMark G3D performance.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with Unknown vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Poor future-proofing: 2019-era hardware with Unknown of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
1375.8% HIGHER MSRP
$2,199 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 7.1 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($2,199 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌533.3% higher power demand at 475W vs 75W.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon Pro Vega II

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $2,050 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
✅Delivers 644.6% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 7.1 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs Unknown).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon Pro Vega II: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon Pro Vega II is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 75W instead of 475W, a 400W reduction.

Why buy it

✅+98.2% higher PassMark G3D performance.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 15,597).
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with Unknown vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Poor future-proofing: 2019-era hardware with Unknown of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌
1375.8% HIGHER MSRP
$2,199 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 7.1 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($2,199 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌533.3% higher power demand at 475W vs 75W.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon Pro Vega II better than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes. Radeon Pro Vega II is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 15,597 vs 7,869 in G3D Mark. On top of that, Radeon Pro Vega II is a 2019 card with FSR upscaling, while GeForce GTX 1650 is a 2019 model from an older generation with no meaningful modern upscaling stack. So this is not really a tight same-tier comparison. It is more a modern card against an older, weaker alternative.

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

GeForce GTX 1650 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more VRAM at 4 GB instead of Unknown and the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling. That extra memory headroom makes it the safer pick for newer games, heavier textures, and higher settings over time.

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

Radeon Pro Vega II is the smarter buy by a wide margin. Radeon Pro Vega II is about 1375.8% more expensive on MSRP at $2,199 MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 98.2% higher G3D Mark. GeForce GTX 1650 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

When does GeForce GTX 1650 make more sense than Radeon Pro Vega II?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is still an excellent gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It makes more sense if your priority is lower power draw (75W vs 475W), future-proofing, and staying closer to $149 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon Pro Vega II. The trade-off is that Radeon Pro Vega II currently gives you 98.2% higher G3D Mark. GeForce GTX 1650 still holds the G3D-per-dollar lead, so the performance win comes with a real value premium.

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 Vega II Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega II
1080p
low	94 FPS	145 FPS
medium	83 FPS	135 FPS
high	70 FPS	115 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	88 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	128 FPS
medium	74 FPS	109 FPS
high	60 FPS	93 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	73 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	60 FPS
medium	39 FPS	53 FPS
high	27 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	39 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro Vega II

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega II
1080p
low	136 FPS	414 FPS
medium	113 FPS	348 FPS
high	94 FPS	275 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	225 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	258 FPS
medium	62 FPS	219 FPS
high	44 FPS	181 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	147 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	120 FPS
medium	27 FPS	99 FPS
high	21 FPS	81 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	64 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro Vega II

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega II
1080p
low	323 FPS	687 FPS
medium	283 FPS	561 FPS
high	205 FPS	468 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	351 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	520 FPS
medium	202 FPS	421 FPS
high	151 FPS	351 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	263 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	315 FPS
medium	117 FPS	270 FPS
high	79 FPS	220 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	174 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro Vega II

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega II
1080p
low	261 FPS	422 FPS
medium	211 FPS	353 FPS
high	191 FPS	307 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	262 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	313 FPS
medium	158 FPS	265 FPS
high	135 FPS	221 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	190 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	185 FPS
medium	74 FPS	166 FPS
high	65 FPS	142 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	117 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro Vega II

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon Pro Vega II

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 Vega II

The Radeon Pro Vega II is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 3 2019. It features the GCN 5.1 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1574 MHz to 1720 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 475W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 15,597 points. Launch price was $2,199.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon Pro Vega II's 15,597 — the Radeon Pro Vega II leads by 98.2%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon Pro Vega II uses GCN 5.1, both on 12 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4,096 (Radeon Pro Vega II). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 14.09 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro Vega II). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1720 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega II
G3D Mark Score	7,869	15,597+98%
Architecture	Turing	GCN 5.1
Process Node	12 nm	7 nm
Shading Units	896	4096+357%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	14.09 TFLOPS+372%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz	1720 MHz+3%
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	256+357%
L1 Cache	0.88 MB	1 MB+14%
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 Vega II relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega II
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 Vega II has 0 MB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 864 GB/s (Radeon Pro Vega II) — a 575% advantage for the Radeon Pro Vega II. Bus width: 128-bit vs 384-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Radeon Pro Vega II) — the Radeon Pro Vega II has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega II
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	Shared System RAM
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	864 GB/s+575%
Bus Width	128-bit	384-bit+200%
L2 Cache	1 MB	4 MB+300%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.1 (Radeon Pro Vega II). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 6.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega II
DirectX	12	12.1
Vulkan	1.4+8%	1.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	6+100%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 4.1 (Radeon Pro Vega II). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 7.2. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Radeon Pro Vega II).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega II
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 4.1
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 7.2
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon Pro Vega II's 475W — a 145.5% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1W (Radeon Pro Vega II). Power connectors: None vs Integrated. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 4 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega II
TDP	75W-84%	475W
Recommended PSU	300W	1W-100%
Power Connector	None	Integrated
Length	229mm	267mm
Height	111mm	120mm
Slots	2-50%	4
Temp (Load)	70°C-18%	85°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+220%	32.8

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon Pro Vega II launched at $2199. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 93.2% less ($2050 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7.1 (Radeon Pro Vega II) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 643.7% better value.