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 Ti

2012

Why buy it

✅Costs $150 less on MSRP ($150 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
✅Delivers 111.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 50.2 vs 23.8 G3D/$ ($150 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
✅Draws 50W instead of 85W, a 35W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon Pro 5300 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Poor future-proofing: 2012-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.

Radeon Pro 5300

2020

Why buy it

✅66.1% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌
100% HIGHER MSRP
$300 MSRPvs$150 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 23.8 vs 50.2 G3D/$ ($300 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
❌70% higher power demand at 85W vs 50W.

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti

2012

Radeon Pro 5300

2020

Why buy it

✅Costs $150 less on MSRP ($150 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
✅Delivers 111.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 50.2 vs 23.8 G3D/$ ($150 MSRP vs $300 MSRP).
✅Draws 50W instead of 85W, a 35W reduction.

Why buy it

✅66.1% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅More future proof: RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) on 7nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon Pro 5300 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Poor future-proofing: 2012-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.

Trade-offs

❌
100% HIGHER MSRP
$300 MSRPvs$150 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 23.8 vs 50.2 G3D/$ ($300 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
❌70% higher power demand at 85W vs 50W.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon Pro 5300 better than GeForce GTX 1650 Ti?

Yes. Radeon Pro 5300 is clearly the better overall GPU here. Radeon Pro 5300 averages 66.1% more FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. You are also looking at 7,125 vs 7,525 in G3D Mark. On top of that, Radeon Pro 5300 is a 2020 card with FSR upscaling, while GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is a 2012 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 5300 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2020 generation instead of 2012, better upscaling support with FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 (2025) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack, and a 7nm process instead of 28nm. 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 5300 is the smarter buy by a wide margin. Radeon Pro 5300 is about 100.0% more expensive on MSRP at $300 MSRP versus $150 MSRP, and you are getting 66.1% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and a lower G3D Mark (7,125 vs 7,525). GeForce GTX 1650 Ti really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

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

No, not for a fresh gaming build. GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is 2012 hardware with 4 GB of VRAM, 7,525 in G3D Mark, and no meaningful modern upscaling stack. That is simply too far behind to be an easy modern recommendation.

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 Ti Benchmark Check

Radeon Pro 5300 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon Pro 5300
1080p
low	35 FPS	78 FPS
medium	24 FPS	68 FPS
high	17 FPS	54 FPS
ultra	9 FPS	36 FPS
1440p
low	28 FPS	71 FPS
medium	17 FPS	61 FPS
high	9 FPS	44 FPS
ultra	5 FPS	28 FPS
4K
low	10 FPS	26 FPS
medium	7 FPS	24 FPS
high	4 FPS	16 FPS
ultra	3 FPS	14 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Open Radeon Pro 5300

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon Pro 5300
1080p
low	92 FPS	118 FPS
medium	59 FPS	82 FPS
high	39 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	28 FPS	37 FPS
1440p
low	64 FPS	78 FPS
medium	33 FPS	47 FPS
high	24 FPS	34 FPS
ultra	19 FPS	25 FPS
4K
low	30 FPS	37 FPS
medium	17 FPS	25 FPS
high	13 FPS	20 FPS
ultra	10 FPS	14 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Open Radeon Pro 5300

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon Pro 5300
1080p
low	339 FPS	321 FPS
medium	271 FPS	256 FPS
high	226 FPS	214 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	160 FPS
1440p
low	254 FPS	240 FPS
medium	203 FPS	192 FPS
high	169 FPS	160 FPS
ultra	127 FPS	120 FPS
4K
low	169 FPS	157 FPS
medium	135 FPS	128 FPS
high	113 FPS	91 FPS
ultra	76 FPS	62 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Open Radeon Pro 5300

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon Pro 5300
1080p
low	129 FPS	141 FPS
medium	95 FPS	113 FPS
high	73 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	55 FPS	80 FPS
1440p
low	76 FPS	104 FPS
medium	56 FPS	85 FPS
high	47 FPS	73 FPS
ultra	33 FPS	59 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	59 FPS
medium	29 FPS	47 FPS
high	23 FPS	38 FPS
ultra	16 FPS	29 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Open Radeon Pro 5300

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and Radeon Pro 5300

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 9 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 928 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,525 points. Launch price was $149.

Radeon Pro 5300

The Radeon Pro 5300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 4 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1650 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 85W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,125 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti scores 7,525 versus the Radeon Pro 5300's 7,125 — the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti leads by 5.6%. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is built on Kepler while the Radeon Pro 5300 uses RDNA 1.0, both on 28 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 768 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 1,280 (Radeon Pro 5300). Raw compute: 1.425 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 4.224 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 5300).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon Pro 5300
G3D Mark Score	7,525+6%	7,125
Architecture	Kepler	RDNA 1.0
Process Node	28 nm	7 nm
Shading Units	768	1280+67%
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.425 TFLOPS	4.224 TFLOPS+196%
ROPs	16	32+100%
TMUs	64	80+25%
L2 Cache	0.25 MB	2 MB+700%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Radeon Pro 5300 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon Pro 5300
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)

Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR6. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 2 MB (Radeon Pro 5300) — the Radeon Pro 5300 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon Pro 5300
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR6
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	0.25 MB	2 MB+700%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 12.1 (Radeon Pro 5300). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon Pro 5300
DirectX	12 (12_1)	12.1
Vulkan	1.3	1.4+8%
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 6 (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs VCN 2.0 (Radeon Pro 5300). Decoder: NVDEC 4 vs VCN 2.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Radeon Pro 5300).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon Pro 5300
Encoder	NVENC 6 (Volta)	VCN 2.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4	VCN 2.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti draws 50W versus the Radeon Pro 5300's 85W — a 51.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 0W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 350W (Radeon Pro 5300). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 0mm, occupying 0 vs 0 slots.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 Ti	Radeon Pro 5300
TDP	50W-41%	85W
Recommended PSU	0W-100%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	0mm	0mm
Height	0mm	0mm
Slots	0	0
Temp (Load)	75	—
Perf/Watt	150.5+80%	83.8

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti launched at $150 MSRP, while the Radeon Pro 5300 launched at $300. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti costs 50% less ($150 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 50.2 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 23.8 (Radeon Pro 5300) — the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers 110.9% better value. The Radeon Pro 5300 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2012).