GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700 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 R7 PRO A10-9700 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 R7 PRO A10-9700: 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
- ✅293.6% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Costs $20 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1007.4% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 4.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $169 MSRP).
- ✅700% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 512 MB).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 300W, a 225W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
- ❌22800% longer card at 229mm vs 1mm.
Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700
2025Why buy it
- ✅Better long-term bet: RDNA 4.0 (2025) on 4nm gives it a newer hardware base for upcoming games.
- ✅Measures 1mm instead of 229mm, a 228mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
- ✅More future proof: RDNA 4.0 (2025) on 4nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌13.4% HIGHER MSRP$169 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 4.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($169 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌300% higher power demand at 300W 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 R7 PRO A10-9700 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 R7 PRO A10-9700
The Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in July 23 2025. It features the Bristol Ridge architecture. The core clock ranges from 1660 MHz to 2920 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 64 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 806 points. Launch price was $1,299.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700's 806 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 876.3%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700 uses Bristol Ridge, both on 12 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4,096 (Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 47.84 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2920 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+876% | 806 |
| Architecture | Turing | Bristol Ridge |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 4096+357% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 47.84 TFLOPS+1503% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2920 MHz+75% |
| ROPs | 32 | 128+300% |
| TMUs | 56 | 256+357% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 8 MB+700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce GTX 1650 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 R7 PRO A10-9700 carries 512 MB. GeForce GTX 1650 gives you 700% 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 System on the Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8 MB (Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700) — the Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+700% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | Shared |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | System |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 8 MB+700% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 3.0 (Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 6.0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCE 3.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | UVD 6.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | — |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700's 300W — a 120% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 1mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-75% | 300W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 1mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+3785% | 2.7 |
Value Analysis
At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700 launched at $169. On MSRP, GeForce GTX 1650 was 11.8% cheaper ($20 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4.8 (Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 1000% better value. The newer card here is Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700 (2025 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-12% | $169 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+1000% | 4.8 |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 48 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | July 23 2025 |
| Ranking | #323 | #23 |
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 R7 PRO A10-9700
