
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL
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.
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
2019Why buy it
- ✅+74.9% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs Unknown).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌15.4% higher power demand at 75W vs 65W.
Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL
2018Why buy it
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 75W, a 10W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (4,498 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with Unknown vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2018-era hardware with Unknown of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL
2018Why buy it
- ✅+74.9% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs Unknown).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 65W instead of 75W, a 10W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌15.4% higher power demand at 75W vs 65W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (4,498 vs 7,869).
- ❌Less VRAM, with Unknown vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2018-era hardware with Unknown of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL still worth buying for gaming in 2026?
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.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 100 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 86 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 69 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 41 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 87 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 75 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 53 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 31 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 27 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 26 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 17 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 15 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 119 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 88 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 68 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 43 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 67 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 45 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 33 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 23 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 25 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 17 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 13 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 10 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 202 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 162 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 135 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 101 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 152 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 121 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 101 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 76 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 101 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 81 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 67 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 51 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 144 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 116 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 98 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 81 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 104 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 85 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 72 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 58 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 62 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 47 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 37 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 27 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL

GeForce GTX 1650
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 Vega M GL
Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL
The Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 24 2018. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 931 MHz to 1011 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 65W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,498 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL's 4,498 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 74.9%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL uses GCN 4.0, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,280 (Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.588 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1011 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+75% | 4,498 |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 1280+43% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+15% | 2.588 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+65% | 1011 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 80+43% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+180% | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
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 WX Vega M GL relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL |
|---|---|---|
| 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 WX Vega M GL has 0 MB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | Shared System RAM |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL's 65W — a 14.3% difference. The Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1W (Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL). Power connectors: None vs Integrated.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 65W-13% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W | 1W-100% |
| Power Connector | None | Integrated |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+52% | 69.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL launched at $0. The Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL costs 100+% less ($149 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs Infinity (Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL) — the Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL offers Infinity% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $0-100% |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8 | Infinity |
| Codename | TU117 | Polaris 22 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | April 24 2018 |
| Ranking | #323 | #464 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













