GeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs Radeon Pro W5500X
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Popular choices:
Radeon Pro W5500X
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Performance Per Dollar Radeon Pro W5500X
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon Pro W5500X is significantly newer (2019 vs 2012). The Radeon Pro W5500X likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.4% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon Pro W5500X offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro W5500X |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.4%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $77 versus $500 for the Radeon Pro W5500X, it costs 85% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 564.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro W5500X |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+564.7%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($77) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) |
Performance Check
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 7800X3D 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and Radeon Pro W5500X
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 W5500X
The Radeon Pro W5500X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 11 2019. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1187 MHz to 1757 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 125W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,351 points. Launch price was $599.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti scores 7,525 and the Radeon Pro W5500X reaches 7,351 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is built on Kepler while the Radeon Pro W5500X uses RDNA 1.0, both on 28 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 768 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 1,536 (Radeon Pro W5500X). Raw compute: 1.425 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 5.398 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro W5500X).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro W5500X |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,525+2% | 7,351 |
| Architecture | Kepler | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 1536+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.425 TFLOPS | 5.398 TFLOPS+279% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 64 | 96+50% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 2 MB+700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro W5500X |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon Pro W5500X has 8 GB. The Radeon Pro W5500X offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 2 MB (Radeon Pro W5500X) — the Radeon Pro W5500X has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro W5500X |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| 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 12.0 (Radeon Pro W5500X). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 5.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro W5500X |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 5+67% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 6 (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs VCN 2.0 (Radeon Pro W5500X). Decoder: NVDEC 4 vs VCN 2.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs H.264,H.265 (Radeon Pro W5500X).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro W5500X |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 6 (Volta) | VCN 2.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4 | VCN 2.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 | H.264,H.265 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti draws 50W versus the Radeon Pro W5500X's 125W — a 85.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 0W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 350W (Radeon Pro W5500X). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro W5500X |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-60% | 125W |
| Recommended PSU | 0W-100% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | — |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 150.5+156% | 58.8 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $77, while the Radeon Pro W5500X launched at $599 and now averages $500. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti costs 84.6% less ($423 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 97.7 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 14.7 (Radeon Pro W5500X) — the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers 564.6% better value. The Radeon Pro W5500X is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro W5500X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150-75% | $599 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $77-85% | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 97.7+565% | 14.7 |
| Codename | GK106 | Navi 14 |
| Release | October 9 2012 | December 11 2019 |
| Ranking | #633 | #345 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and Radeon Pro W5500X
