GeForce GTX 1650 vs FirePro M5100
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
FirePro M5100
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2013). The GeForce GTX 1650 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FirePro M5100 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 319.9% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the FirePro M5100.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro M5100 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+319.9%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-319.9%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $30), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 68% better value per dollar than the FirePro M5100.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro M5100 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+68%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75) | ✅More affordable ($30) |
Performance Check
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 7800X3D 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and FirePro M5100
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.
FirePro M5100
The FirePro M5100 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 16 2013. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 725 MHz to 775 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,874 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the FirePro M5100's 1,874 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 319.9%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the FirePro M5100 uses GCN 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 640 (FirePro M5100). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.992 TFLOPS (FirePro M5100). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 775 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro M5100 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+320% | 1,874 |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+40% | 640 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+201% | 0.992 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+115% | 775 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+40% | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+460% | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro M5100 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the FirePro M5100 has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.25 MB (FirePro M5100) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro M5100 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 (FL11_1) (FirePro M5100). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 1.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro M5100 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (FL11_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.4+17% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3+200% | 1 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 1.0 (FirePro M5100). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,VC-1 (FirePro M5100).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro M5100 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCE 1.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | UVD 4.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the FirePro M5100's 150W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (FirePro M5100). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 82mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro M5100 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-50% | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 82mm |
| Height | 111mm | 70mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-7% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+739% | 12.5 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the FirePro M5100 launched at $0 and now averages $30. The FirePro M5100 costs 60% less ($45 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 62.5 (FirePro M5100) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 67.8% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro M5100 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75 | $30-60% |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+68% | 62.5 |
| Codename | TU117 | Venus |
| Release | April 23 2019 | October 16 2013 |
| Ranking | #323 | #701 |
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 FirePro M5100
