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 $250 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $399 MSRP).
✅Delivers 74.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 30.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $399 MSRP).
✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs Unknown).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon Pro Vega 56: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon Pro Vega 56 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
✅Draws 75W instead of 210W, a 135W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 12,104).
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Radeon Pro Vega 56

2017

Why buy it

✅+53.8% higher PassMark G3D performance.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with Unknown vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with Unknown of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌
167.8% HIGHER MSRP
$399 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 30.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($399 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌180% higher power demand at 210W vs 75W.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon Pro Vega 56

2017

Why buy it

✅Costs $250 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $399 MSRP).
✅Delivers 74.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 30.3 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $399 MSRP).
✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs Unknown).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon Pro Vega 56: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon Pro Vega 56 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
✅Draws 75W instead of 210W, a 135W reduction.

Why buy it

✅+53.8% higher PassMark G3D performance.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 12,104).
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with Unknown vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Very weak future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with Unknown of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
❌
167.8% HIGHER MSRP
$399 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 30.3 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($399 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌180% higher power demand at 210W vs 75W.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon Pro Vega 56 better than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes. Radeon Pro Vega 56 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 12,104 vs 7,869 in G3D Mark. On top of that, Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a 2017 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?

GeForce GTX 1650 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2019 generation instead of 2017, more VRAM at 4 GB instead of Unknown, the stronger feature stack with no meaningful modern upscaling stack instead of FSR upscaling, and a 12nm process instead of 14nm. That extra memory headroom makes it the safer pick for newer games, heavier textures, and higher settings over time.

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

Radeon Pro Vega 56 is the smarter buy by a wide margin. Radeon Pro Vega 56 is about 167.8% more expensive on MSRP at $399 MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 53.8% higher G3D Mark. GeForce GTX 1650 really only makes sense now as a very cheap stopgap or a used-market placeholder.

When does GeForce GTX 1650 make more sense than Radeon Pro Vega 56?

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 210W), future-proofing, and staying closer to $149 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon Pro Vega 56. The trade-off is that Radeon Pro Vega 56 currently gives you 53.8% 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 Vega 56 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 56
1080p
low	94 FPS	95 FPS
medium	83 FPS	82 FPS
high	70 FPS	70 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	48 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	79 FPS
medium	74 FPS	68 FPS
high	60 FPS	53 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	36 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	31 FPS
medium	39 FPS	28 FPS
high	27 FPS	22 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	19 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro Vega 56

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 56
1080p
low	136 FPS	267 FPS
medium	113 FPS	227 FPS
high	94 FPS	178 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	144 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	189 FPS
medium	62 FPS	162 FPS
high	44 FPS	132 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	105 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	100 FPS
medium	27 FPS	83 FPS
high	21 FPS	71 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	55 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro Vega 56

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 56
1080p
low	323 FPS	485 FPS
medium	283 FPS	417 FPS
high	205 FPS	363 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	272 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	386 FPS
medium	202 FPS	327 FPS
high	151 FPS	272 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	204 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	245 FPS
medium	117 FPS	202 FPS
high	79 FPS	160 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	123 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro Vega 56

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 56
1080p
low	261 FPS	176 FPS
medium	211 FPS	144 FPS
high	191 FPS	123 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	104 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	127 FPS
medium	158 FPS	107 FPS
high	135 FPS	92 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	78 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	73 FPS
medium	74 FPS	61 FPS
high	65 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	37 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro Vega 56

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon Pro Vega 56

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 Vega 56

The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 14 2017. It features the GCN 5.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1138 MHz to 1250 MHz. It has 3584 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 210W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,104 points. Launch price was $399.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon Pro Vega 56's 12,104 — the Radeon Pro Vega 56 leads by 53.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon Pro Vega 56 uses GCN 5.0, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3,584 (Radeon Pro Vega 56). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8.96 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro Vega 56). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1250 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 56
G3D Mark Score	7,869	12,104+54%
Architecture	Turing	GCN 5.0
Process Node	12 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	896	3584+300%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	8.96 TFLOPS+200%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+33%	1250 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 Vega 56 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 56
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 Vega 56 has 0 MB. The GeForce GTX 1650 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 Vega 56) — the Radeon Pro Vega 56 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 56
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	Shared System RAM
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 Vega 56). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 56
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 Vega 56). 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 Vega 56).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 56
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 Vega 56's 210W — a 94.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1W (Radeon Pro Vega 56). Power connectors: None vs Integrated. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 56
TDP	75W-64%	210W
Recommended PSU	300W	1W-100%
Power Connector	None	Integrated
Length	229mm	267mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C-18%	85°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+82%	57.6

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon Pro Vega 56 launched at $399. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 62.7% less ($250 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 30.3 (Radeon Pro Vega 56) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 74.3% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).