GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon PRO W6400

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.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Radeon PRO W6400

#9

Intel Arc Pro B50

MSRP: $349|Avg: $349

95%

#11

Quadro RTX 4000 (móvel)

MSRP: $900|Avg: $300

90%

#16

Radeon PRO W7500

MSRP: $429|Avg: $401

84%

#18

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

401%

#18

Radeon Pro V520 MxGPU

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $340

83%

#19

RTX A2000 12GB

MSRP: $449|Avg: $380

83%

#20

Radeon Pro Vega 56

MSRP: $399|Avg: $60

82%

#21

RTX A2000

MSRP: $450|Avg: $320

81%

#33

Radeon PRO W6400

MSRP: $229|Avg: $200

100%

#36

T600

MSRP: $200|Avg: $180

87%

#43

P106-100

MSRP: $224|Avg: $30

80%

#48

Quadro K3100M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $400

78%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Radeon PRO W6400 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 7.1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-7.1%)	✅Leading raw performance (+7.1%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (6nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	🎮 High Capacity (4 GB)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $200 for the Radeon PRO W6400, it costs 63% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 149% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+149%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($75)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($200)

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.

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Radeon PRO W6400 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon PRO W6400

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 W6400

The Radeon PRO W6400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 19 2022. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2331 MHz to 2331 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,428 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon PRO W6400's 8,428 — the Radeon PRO W6400 leads by 7.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon PRO W6400 uses RDNA 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 768 (Radeon PRO W6400). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3.58 TFLOPS (Radeon PRO W6400). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2331 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
G3D Mark Score	7,869	8,428+7%
Architecture	Turing	RDNA 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	6 nm
Shading Units	896+17%	768
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	3.58 TFLOPS+20%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz	2331 MHz+40%
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	56+17%	48
L1 Cache	896 KB+250%	256 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (Radeon PRO W6400). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
DirectX	12	12.2+2%
Vulkan	1.4+17%	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3+50%	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCN 3.0 (Radeon PRO W6400). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 3.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (Radeon PRO W6400).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCN 3.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	VCN 3.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode)

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon PRO W6400's 50W — a 40% difference. The Radeon PRO W6400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Radeon PRO W6400). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 168mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 70°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W6400
TDP	75W	50W-33%
Recommended PSU	300W-40%	500W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	168mm
Height	111mm	69mm
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	70°C	70°C
Perf/Watt	104.9	168.6+61%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon PRO W6400 launched at $229 and now averages $200. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 62.5% less ($125 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 42.1 (Radeon PRO W6400) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 149.2% better value. The Radeon PRO W6400 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2019).