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 $3,850 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $3,999 MSRP).
✅Delivers 648.6% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 7.1 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $3,999 MSRP).
✅Draws 75W instead of 295W, a 220W reduction.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon PRO W7900 across 48 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 48 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 W7900

2023

Why buy it

✅257.7% more average FPS across 48 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅1100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (48 GB vs 4 GB).
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌
2583.9% HIGHER MSRP
$3,999 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 7.1 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($3,999 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌293.3% higher power demand at 295W vs 75W.
❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon PRO W7900

2023

Why buy it

✅Costs $3,850 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $3,999 MSRP).
✅Delivers 648.6% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 7.1 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $3,999 MSRP).
✅Draws 75W instead of 295W, a 220W reduction.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Why buy it

✅257.7% more average FPS across 48 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅1100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (48 GB vs 4 GB).
✅More future proof: RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) on 5nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon PRO W7900 across 48 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 48 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

❌
2583.9% HIGHER MSRP
$3,999 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 7.1 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($3,999 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌293.3% higher power demand at 295W vs 75W.
❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon PRO W7900 better than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes. Radeon PRO W7900 is clearly the better overall GPU here. Radeon PRO W7900 averages 257.7% more FPS across 48 tracked games in our benchmark data. You are also looking at 28,211 vs 7,869 in G3D Mark. On top of that, Radeon PRO W7900 is a 2023 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?

Radeon PRO W7900 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2023 generation instead of 2019, 258.5% more raw performance headroom, more VRAM at 48 GB instead of 4 GB, and better upscaling support with FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 (2025) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack. That leaves it with more room for heavier textures, tougher ray tracing loads, and higher-end 1440p or 4K gaming over the next few years.

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

Radeon PRO W7900 is about 2583.9% more expensive on MSRP at $3,999 MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 257.7% more estimated average FPS across 48 tracked games in our benchmark data and 258.5% higher G3D Mark. GeForce GTX 1650 still holds the G3D-per-dollar lead, so the performance win comes with a real value premium. If you are comfortable paying the premium for the stronger gaming result, Radeon PRO W7900 is the one to buy. If staying closer to budget matters more, GeForce GTX 1650 still makes more sense on price alone, but the performance trade-off is much harder to justify by current standards.

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

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is still a strong gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. This mostly comes down to price. If you want to stay closer to $149 MSRP, it remains a strong choice; if you are comfortable paying more, Radeon PRO W7900 earns that extra money with a clearly stronger gaming result and a more complete overall package.

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 W7900 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7900
1080p
low	94 FPS	262 FPS
medium	83 FPS	242 FPS
high	70 FPS	210 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	183 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	246 FPS
medium	74 FPS	205 FPS
high	60 FPS	167 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	150 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	174 FPS
medium	39 FPS	145 FPS
high	27 FPS	112 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	100 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon PRO W7900

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7900
1080p
low	136 FPS	813 FPS
medium	113 FPS	639 FPS
high	94 FPS	471 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	405 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	617 FPS
medium	62 FPS	495 FPS
high	44 FPS	382 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	307 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	320 FPS
medium	27 FPS	256 FPS
high	21 FPS	225 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	191 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon PRO W7900

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7900
1080p
low	323 FPS	945 FPS
medium	283 FPS	775 FPS
high	205 FPS	690 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	595 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	714 FPS
medium	202 FPS	587 FPS
high	151 FPS	511 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	432 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	498 FPS
medium	117 FPS	412 FPS
high	79 FPS	358 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	292 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon PRO W7900

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7900
1080p
low	261 FPS	946 FPS
medium	211 FPS	801 FPS
high	191 FPS	714 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	621 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	714 FPS
medium	158 FPS	604 FPS
high	135 FPS	525 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	456 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	505 FPS
medium	74 FPS	437 FPS
high	65 FPS	386 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	317 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon PRO W7900

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon PRO W7900

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 W7900

The Radeon PRO W7900 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 13 2023. It features the RDNA 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1855 MHz to 2495 MHz. It has 6144 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 295W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 96 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 28,211 points. Launch price was $3,999.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon PRO W7900's 28,211 — the Radeon PRO W7900 leads by 258.5%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon PRO W7900 uses RDNA 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 6,144 (Radeon PRO W7900). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 61.32 TFLOPS (Radeon PRO W7900). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2495 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7900
G3D Mark Score	7,869	28,211+259%
Architecture	Turing	RDNA 3.0
Process Node	12 nm	5 nm
Shading Units	896	6144+586%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	61.32 TFLOPS+1955%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz	2495 MHz+50%
ROPs	32	192+500%
TMUs	56	384+586%
L1 Cache	0.88 MB	3 MB+241%
L2 Cache	1 MB	6 MB+500%

✨

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 W7900 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7900
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 W7900 has 48 GB. The Radeon PRO W7900 offers 1100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 864 GB/s (Radeon PRO W7900) — a 575% advantage for the Radeon PRO W7900. Bus width: 128-bit vs 384-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 6 MB (Radeon PRO W7900) — the Radeon PRO W7900 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7900
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	48 GB+1100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	864 GB/s+575%
Bus Width	128-bit	384-bit+200%
L2 Cache	1 MB	6 MB+500%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (Radeon PRO W7900). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7900
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 W7900). 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 W7900).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7900
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 W7900's 295W — a 118.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 750W (Radeon PRO W7900). Power connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 3 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7900
TDP	75W-75%	295W
Recommended PSU	300W-60%	750W
Power Connector	None	2x 8-pin
Length	229mm	267mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2-33%	3
Temp (Load)	70°C-13%	80°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+10%	95.6

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon PRO W7900 launched at $3999. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 96.3% less ($3850 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7.1 (Radeon PRO W7900) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 643.7% better value. The Radeon PRO W7900 is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2019).