GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon Pro WX 2100
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon Pro WX 2100 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 WX 2100 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 WX 2100: 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
- ✅335.4% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Delivers 320.6% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 12.6 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
- ✅Radeon Pro WX 2100 is already obsolete for modern gaming, so GeForce GTX 1650 is the less risky modern option long term.
Trade-offs
- ❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
- ❌114.3% higher power demand at 75W vs 35W.
- ❌36.3% longer card at 229mm vs 168mm.
Radeon Pro WX 2100
2017Why buy it
- ✅Draws 35W instead of 75W, a 40W reduction.
- ✅Measures 168mm instead of 229mm, a 61mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌2017 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 12.6 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
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 WX 2100 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 WX 2100
The Radeon Pro WX 2100 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 4 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 925 MHz to 1219 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 35W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,871 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon Pro WX 2100's 1,871 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 320.6%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses GCN 4.0, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 512 (Radeon Pro WX 2100). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.248 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro WX 2100). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1219 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+321% | 1,871 |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+75% | 512 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+139% | 1.248 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+37% | 1219 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+75% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+600% | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce GTX 1650 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WX 2100 carries 2 GB. GeForce GTX 1650 gives you 100% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and 64-bit on the Radeon Pro WX 2100. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.25 MB (Radeon Pro WX 2100) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (12_0) (Radeon Pro WX 2100). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_0) |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 3.4 (Polaris) (Radeon Pro WX 2100). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 6.3. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,HEVC (Radeon Pro WX 2100).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCE 3.4 (Polaris) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | UVD 6.3 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon Pro WX 2100's 35W — a 72.7% difference. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon Pro WX 2100). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 168mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 35W-53% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 168mm |
| Height | 111mm | 69mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+96% | 53.5 |
Value Analysis
At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 launched at $149. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.6 (Radeon Pro WX 2100) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 319% better value. The newer card here is GeForce GTX 1650 (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX 2100 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $149 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+319% | 12.6 |
| Codename | TU117 | Lexa |
| Release | April 23 2019 | June 4 2017 |
| Ranking | #323 | #702 |
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 WX 2100
