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 $850 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Delivers 318.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 12.6 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Draws 75W instead of 230W, a 155W reduction.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 12,615).
❌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 WX 8200

2018

Why buy it

✅+60.3% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 8 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
❌
570.5% HIGHER MSRP
$999 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 12.6 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($999 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌206.7% higher power demand at 230W vs 75W.
❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon Pro WX 8200

2018

Why buy it

✅Costs $850 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Delivers 318.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 12.6 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $999 MSRP).
✅Draws 75W instead of 230W, a 155W reduction.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Why buy it

✅+60.3% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 12,615).
❌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

❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 8 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
❌
570.5% HIGHER MSRP
$999 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 12.6 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($999 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌206.7% higher power demand at 230W vs 75W.
❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon Pro WX 8200 better than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes. Radeon Pro WX 8200 is the better GPU overall here. You are getting 60.3% higher PassMark G3D performance and 8 GB vs 4 GB of VRAM. It also comes from 2018 instead of 2019, which helps its case as the more complete modern gaming card.

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 a newer 2019 generation instead of 2018, the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling, and a 12nm process instead of 14nm. 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?

Radeon Pro WX 8200 is about 570.5% more expensive on MSRP at $999 MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 60.3% 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 WX 8200 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.

When does GeForce GTX 1650 make more sense than Radeon Pro WX 8200?

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 newer architecture, lower power draw (75W vs 230W), future-proofing, and staying closer to $149 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon Pro WX 8200. The trade-off is that Radeon Pro WX 8200 currently gives you 60.3% 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 WX 8200 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro WX 8200
1080p
low	94 FPS	163 FPS
medium	83 FPS	140 FPS
high	70 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	75 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	130 FPS
medium	74 FPS	108 FPS
high	60 FPS	85 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	53 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	50 FPS
medium	39 FPS	43 FPS
high	27 FPS	31 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	27 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro WX 8200

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro WX 8200
1080p
low	136 FPS	320 FPS
medium	113 FPS	277 FPS
high	94 FPS	213 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	171 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	209 FPS
medium	62 FPS	175 FPS
high	44 FPS	144 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	114 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	100 FPS
medium	27 FPS	81 FPS
high	21 FPS	68 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	53 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro WX 8200

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro WX 8200
1080p
low	323 FPS	568 FPS
medium	283 FPS	454 FPS
high	205 FPS	378 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	284 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	426 FPS
medium	202 FPS	341 FPS
high	151 FPS	284 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	213 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	284 FPS
medium	117 FPS	227 FPS
high	79 FPS	189 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	142 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro WX 8200

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro WX 8200
1080p
low	261 FPS	272 FPS
medium	211 FPS	237 FPS
high	191 FPS	202 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	163 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	207 FPS
medium	158 FPS	184 FPS
high	135 FPS	158 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	126 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	123 FPS
medium	74 FPS	108 FPS
high	65 FPS	84 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	68 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro WX 8200

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon Pro WX 8200

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 WX 8200

The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 13 2018. It features the GCN 5.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1200 MHz to 1500 MHz. It has 3584 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 230W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,615 points. Launch price was $999.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon Pro WX 8200's 12,615 — the Radeon Pro WX 8200 leads by 60.3%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 uses GCN 5.0, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3,584 (Radeon Pro WX 8200). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 10.75 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro WX 8200). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1500 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro WX 8200
G3D Mark Score	7,869	12,615+60%
Architecture	Turing	GCN 5.0
Process Node	12 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	896	3584+300%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	10.75 TFLOPS+260%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+11%	1500 MHz
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	224+300%
L1 Cache	896 KB	896 KB
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 WX 8200 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro WX 8200
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 WX 8200 has 8 GB. The Radeon Pro WX 8200 offers 100% 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 WX 8200) — the Radeon Pro WX 8200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro WX 8200
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
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 12.1 (Radeon Pro WX 8200). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro WX 8200
DirectX	12	12.1
Vulkan	1.4+27%	1.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 4.0 (Radeon Pro WX 8200). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 7.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Radeon Pro WX 8200).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro WX 8200
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCE 4.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	UVD 7.0
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 WX 8200's 230W — a 101.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Radeon Pro WX 8200). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro WX 8200
TDP	75W-67%	230W
Recommended PSU	300W-40%	500W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	267mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C-13%	80°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+91%	54.8

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon Pro WX 8200 launched at $999. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 85.1% less ($850 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.6 (Radeon Pro WX 8200) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 319% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).