
GeForce GTX 1650 vs FirePro W9000

GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

FirePro W9000
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 FirePro W9000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2012). 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 W9000 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 27.8% higher G3D Mark score. However, the FirePro W9000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro W9000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+27.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-27.8%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (279mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $150 for the FirePro W9000, it costs 50% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 155.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro W9000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+155.6%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) |
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 W9000

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 W9000
The FirePro W9000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 14 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 975 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 274W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,157 points. Launch price was $3,999.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the FirePro W9000's 6,157 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 27.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the FirePro W9000 uses GCN 1.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,048 (FirePro W9000). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3.994 TFLOPS (FirePro W9000).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro W9000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+28% | 6,157 |
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2048+129% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 3.994 TFLOPS+34% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 128+129% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+75% | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+33% | 0.75 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro W9000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 W9000 has 6 GB. The FirePro W9000 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.75 MB (FirePro W9000) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro W9000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 6 GB+50% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+33% | 0.75 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (FirePro W9000). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 6.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro W9000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+17% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 6+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCE 1.0 (FirePro W9000). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs UVD 3.2. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (FirePro W9000).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro W9000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | VCE 1.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | UVD 3.2 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the FirePro W9000's 274W — a 114% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (FirePro W9000). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 279mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 93°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro W9000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-73% | 274W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 279mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-25% | 93°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+366% | 22.5 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the FirePro W9000 launched at $3999 and now averages $150. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 50% less ($75 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 41.0 (FirePro W9000) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 155.9% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | FirePro W9000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-96% | $3999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-50% | $150 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+156% | 41.0 |
| Codename | TU117 | Tahiti |
| Release | April 23 2019 | June 14 2012 |
| Ranking | #323 | #390 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.











