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 $450 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
✅Delivers 145.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 21.5 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs Unknown).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon Pro Vega 64: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon Pro Vega 64 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
✅Draws 75W instead of 250W, a 175W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 12,891).
❌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 64

2017

Why buy it

✅+63.8% 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.
❌
302% HIGHER MSRP
$599 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 21.5 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($599 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌233.3% higher power demand at 250W vs 75W.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Radeon Pro Vega 64

2017

Why buy it

✅Costs $450 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
✅Delivers 145.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 21.5 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $599 MSRP).
✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs Unknown).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon Pro Vega 64: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon Pro Vega 64 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
✅Draws 75W instead of 250W, a 175W reduction.

Why buy it

✅+63.8% higher PassMark G3D performance.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (7,869 vs 12,891).
❌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.
❌
302% HIGHER MSRP
$599 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 21.5 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($599 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌233.3% higher power demand at 250W vs 75W.

Quick Answers

So, is Radeon Pro Vega 64 better than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes. Radeon Pro Vega 64 is clearly the better overall GPU here. You are also looking at 12,891 vs 7,869 in G3D Mark. On top of that, Radeon Pro Vega 64 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 64 is the smarter buy by a wide margin. Radeon Pro Vega 64 is about 302.0% more expensive on MSRP at $599 MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 63.8% 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 64?

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 250W), future-proofing, and staying closer to $149 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of Radeon Pro Vega 64. The trade-off is that Radeon Pro Vega 64 currently gives you 63.8% 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 64 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 64
1080p
low	94 FPS	106 FPS
medium	83 FPS	96 FPS
high	70 FPS	81 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	67 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	94 FPS
medium	74 FPS	81 FPS
high	60 FPS	65 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	55 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	47 FPS
medium	39 FPS	42 FPS
high	27 FPS	32 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	29 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro Vega 64

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 64
1080p
low	136 FPS	301 FPS
medium	113 FPS	262 FPS
high	94 FPS	203 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	164 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	204 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	84 FPS
high	21 FPS	71 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	56 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro Vega 64

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 64
1080p
low	323 FPS	580 FPS
medium	283 FPS	464 FPS
high	205 FPS	387 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	290 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	435 FPS
medium	202 FPS	348 FPS
high	151 FPS	290 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	218 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	290 FPS
medium	117 FPS	232 FPS
high	79 FPS	193 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	145 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro Vega 64

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 64
1080p
low	261 FPS	300 FPS
medium	211 FPS	247 FPS
high	191 FPS	215 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	170 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	220 FPS
medium	158 FPS	182 FPS
high	135 FPS	154 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	122 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	132 FPS
medium	74 FPS	118 FPS
high	65 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	79 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Radeon Pro Vega 64

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon Pro Vega 64

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 64

The Radeon Pro Vega 64 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 27 2017. It features the GCN 5.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1250 MHz to 1350 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,891 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon Pro Vega 64's 12,891 — the Radeon Pro Vega 64 leads by 63.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon Pro Vega 64 uses GCN 5.0, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4,096 (Radeon Pro Vega 64). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 11.06 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro Vega 64). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1350 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 64
G3D Mark Score	7,869	12,891+64%
Architecture	Turing	GCN 5.0
Process Node	12 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	896	4096+357%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	11.06 TFLOPS+271%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+23%	1350 MHz
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	256+357%
L1 Cache	0.88 MB	1 MB+14%
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 64 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 64
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 64 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 64) — the Radeon Pro Vega 64 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 64
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 64). 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 64
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 64). 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 64).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon Pro Vega 64
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 64's 250W — a 107.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1W (Radeon Pro Vega 64). 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 64
TDP	75W-70%	250W
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+103%	51.6

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon Pro Vega 64 launched at $599. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 75.1% less ($450 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 21.5 (Radeon Pro Vega 64) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 145.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).