
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon PRO W6600

GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Radeon PRO W6600
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 Radeon PRO W6600
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon PRO W6600 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 89.8% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (8 GB vs 4 GB). 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 W6600 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-89.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+89.8%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🔮Strong Longevity (RDNA 2.0 / 7nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (8 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 $649 for the Radeon PRO W6600, it costs 88% less. While it maintains lower overall performance, this results in a 356% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W6600 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+356%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($649) |
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 Radeon PRO W6600

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 W6600
The Radeon PRO W6600 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 8 2021. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2331 MHz to 2903 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. It features 28 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 14,932 points. Launch price was $649.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon PRO W6600's 14,932 — the Radeon PRO W6600 leads by 89.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon PRO W6600 uses RDNA 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,792 (Radeon PRO W6600). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 10.4 TFLOPS (Radeon PRO W6600). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2903 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W6600 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 14,932+90% |
| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 1792+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 10.4 TFLOPS+249% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2903 MHz+74% |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 112+100% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+75% | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W6600 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon PRO W6600 has 8 GB. The Radeon PRO W6600 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 224 GB/s (Radeon PRO W6600) — a 75% advantage for the Radeon PRO W6600. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Radeon PRO W6600) — the Radeon PRO W6600 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W6600 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 224 GB/s+75% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (Radeon PRO W6600). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W6600 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCN 3.0 (Radeon PRO W6600). 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 (Radeon PRO W6600).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W6600 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon PRO W6600's 100W — a 28.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Radeon PRO W6600). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 190mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W6600 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-25% | 100W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-40% | 500W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 190mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-7% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 149.3+42% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon PRO W6600 launched at $649 and now averages $649. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 88.4% less ($574 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 23.0 (Radeon PRO W6600) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 356.1% better value. The Radeon PRO W6600 is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2019).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Radeon PRO W6600 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-77% | $649 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-88% | $649 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+356% | 23.0 |
| Codename | TU117 | Navi 23 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | June 8 2021 |
| Ranking | #323 | #153 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.











