GeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs Radeon Pro WX 7100
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Popular choices:
Radeon Pro WX 7100
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 WX 7100
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon Pro WX 7100 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.3% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (8 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro WX 7100 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti holds the technical lead. Priced at $77 (vs $180), it costs 57% less, resulting in a 128.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro WX 7100 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+128.4%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($77) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($180) |
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 WX 7100
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 WX 7100
The Radeon Pro WX 7100 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 10 2016. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1188 MHz to 1243 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 130W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,701 points. Launch price was $799.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti scores 7,525 and the Radeon Pro WX 7100 reaches 7,701 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is built on Kepler while the Radeon Pro WX 7100 uses GCN 4.0, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 768 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 2,304 (Radeon Pro WX 7100). Raw compute: 1.425 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 5.728 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro WX 7100).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro WX 7100 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,525 | 7,701+2% |
| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 2304+200% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.425 TFLOPS | 5.728 TFLOPS+302% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 64 | 144+125% |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 576 KB+800% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 2 MB+700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro WX 7100 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WX 7100 has 8 GB. The Radeon Pro WX 7100 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 WX 7100) — the Radeon Pro WX 7100 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro WX 7100 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WX 7100). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro WX 7100 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3+18% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 6 (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs VCE 3.4 (Radeon Pro WX 7100). Decoder: NVDEC 4 vs UVD 6.3. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Radeon Pro WX 7100).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro WX 7100 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 6 (Volta) | VCE 3.4 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4 | UVD 6.3 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti draws 50W versus the Radeon Pro WX 7100's 130W — a 88.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 0W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 350W (Radeon Pro WX 7100). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 241mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro WX 7100 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-62% | 130W |
| Recommended PSU | 0W-100% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 241mm |
| Height | 0mm | 112mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 75-6% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 150.5+154% | 59.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $77, while the Radeon Pro WX 7100 launched at $799 and now averages $180. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti costs 57.2% less ($103 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 97.7 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 42.8 (Radeon Pro WX 7100) — the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers 128.3% better value. The Radeon Pro WX 7100 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Radeon Pro WX 7100 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150-81% | $799 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $77-57% | $180 |
| Performance per Dollar | 97.7+128% | 42.8 |
| Codename | GK106 | Ellesmere |
| Release | October 9 2012 | November 10 2016 |
| Ranking | #633 | #331 |
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 WX 7100
