GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon Pro Vega II
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon Pro Vega II Performance Spectrum
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.
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon Pro Vega II FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Among Us
Apex Legends
ARC Raiders
Baldur's Gate 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops 6
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon Pro Vega II: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Why buy it
- ✅Costs $2,050 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 644.6% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 7.1 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $2,199 MSRP).
- ✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs Unknown).
- ✅Radeon Pro Vega II is already legacy-tier future-proofing, so GeForce GTX 1650 is the less risky modern option long term.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 475W, a 400W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Radeon Pro Vega II across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
Radeon Pro Vega II
2019Why buy it
- ✅70.1% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
Trade-offs
- ❌Less VRAM, with Unknown vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌2019 hardware with Unknown of VRAM already sits in legacy territory for modern games.
- ❌1375.8% HIGHER MSRP$2,199 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 7.1 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($2,199 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌533.3% higher power demand at 475W vs 75W.
Quick Answers
Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?
Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?
Which GPU is the better buy today?
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon Pro Vega II Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.
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 II
The Radeon Pro Vega II is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 3 2019. It features the GCN 5.1 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1574 MHz to 1720 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 475W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 15,597 points. Launch price was $2,199.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon Pro Vega II's 15,597 — the Radeon Pro Vega II leads by 98.2%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon Pro Vega II uses GCN 5.1, both on 12 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4,096 (Radeon Pro Vega II). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 14.09 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro Vega II). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1720 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro Vega II |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 15,597+98% |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 5.1 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 4096+357% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 14.09 TFLOPS+372% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 1720 MHz+3% |
| 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 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon Pro Vega II leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro Vega II |
|---|---|---|
| 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 has 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon Pro Vega II carries 0 MB. GeForce GTX 1650 gives you 100+% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 864 GB/s (Radeon Pro Vega II) — a 575% advantage for the Radeon Pro Vega II. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and 384-bit on the Radeon Pro Vega II. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Radeon Pro Vega II) — the Radeon Pro Vega II has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro Vega II |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | Shared System RAM |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 864 GB/s+575% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 384-bit+200% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.1 (Radeon Pro Vega II). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 6.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro Vega II |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 6+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 4.1 (Radeon Pro Vega II). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 7.2. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Radeon Pro Vega II).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro Vega II |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCE 4.1 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | UVD 7.2 |
| 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 II's 475W — a 145.5% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1W (Radeon Pro Vega II). Power connectors: None vs Integrated. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 4 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro Vega II |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-84% | 475W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W | 1W-100% |
| Power Connector | None | Integrated |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 120mm |
| Slots | 2-50% | 4 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-18% | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+220% | 32.8 |
Value Analysis
At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the Radeon Pro Vega II launched at $2199. On MSRP, GeForce GTX 1650 was 93.2% cheaper ($2050 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7.1 (Radeon Pro Vega II) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 643.7% better value.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro Vega II |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-93% | $2199 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+644% | 7.1 |
| Codename | TU117 | Vega 20 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | June 3 2019 |
| Ranking | #323 | #138 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
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 and Radeon Pro Vega II
