GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon PRO W7800

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 W7800

#51

RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell

MSRP: $2399|Avg: $2015

136%

#52

RTX A1000

MSRP: $749|Avg: $500

133%

#54

Radeon Pro 5700

MSRP: $799|Avg: $250

132%

#55

Quadro P4000

MSRP: $815|Avg: $290

129%

#57

Quadro RTX 3000

MSRP: $800|Avg: $891

125%

#58

RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell

MSRP: $1999|Avg: $1700

122%

#59

Radeon Vega Frontier Edition

MSRP: $999|Avg: $150

117%

#60

Radeon Pro WX 8200

MSRP: $999|Avg: $350

116%

#62

RTX A4500

MSRP: $1699|Avg: $800

114%

#63

RTX 4500 Ada Generation

MSRP: $2250|Avg: $2000

114%

#64

RTX 4000 Ada Generation

MSRP: $1999|Avg: $1547

111%

#65

RTX A4000H

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $927

109%

#66

Radeon PRO W7800

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $2200

100%

#67

RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

MSRP: $1999|Avg: $1450

95%

#70

Radeon PRO W6800

MSRP: $2249|Avg: $2249

83%

#72

Quadro P4200

MSRP: $1200|Avg: $110

80%

#74

RTX 5000 Ada Generation

MSRP: $4000|Avg: $4095

70%

#75

Radeon Pro Vega II

MSRP: $2199|Avg: $1800

65%

#76

Radeon PRO W7900

MSRP: $3999|Avg: $3500

65%

#77

Radeon Pro VII

MSRP: $1899|Avg: $1400

64%

#78

Quadro RTX 5000

MSRP: $2299|Avg: $692

62%

#79

Quadro RTX 5000 (móvel)

MSRP: $2299|Avg: $692

61%

#80

Radeon Pro W6800X

MSRP: $2799|Avg: $2799

59%

#81

Tesla T10

MSRP: $2000|Avg: $975

58%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Radeon PRO W7800 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 245.4% higher G3D Mark score and 700% more VRAM (32 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 W7800
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-245.4%)	✅Leading raw performance (+245.4%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🏆Elite Architecture (RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) / 5nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	🎮 High Capacity (32 GB)
Efficiency	Normal Efficiency	Normal Efficiency
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	Standard Size (267mm)

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $2,200 for the Radeon PRO W7800, it costs 97% less. While it maintains significantly lower raw performance, this results in a 749.2% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7800
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+749.2%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($75)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($2,200)

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 W7800 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Radeon PRO W7800

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 W7800

The Radeon PRO W7800 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 13 2023. It features the RDNA 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1895 MHz to 2525 MHz. It has 4480 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 260W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 70 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 27,180 points. Launch price was $2,499.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Radeon PRO W7800's 27,180 — the Radeon PRO W7800 leads by 245.4%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Radeon PRO W7800 uses RDNA 3.0, both on 12 nm vs 5 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4,480 (Radeon PRO W7800). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 45.25 TFLOPS (Radeon PRO W7800). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 2525 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7800
G3D Mark Score	7,869	27,180+245%
Architecture	Turing	RDNA 3.0
Process Node	12 nm	5 nm
Shading Units	896	4480+400%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	45.25 TFLOPS+1416%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz	2525 MHz+52%
ROPs	32	128+300%
TMUs	56	280+400%
L1 Cache	0.88 MB	2 MB+127%
L2 Cache	1 MB	6 MB+500%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7800
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 W7800 has 32 GB. The Radeon PRO W7800 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 576 GB/s (Radeon PRO W7800) — a 350% advantage for the Radeon PRO W7800. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 6 MB (Radeon PRO W7800) — the Radeon PRO W7800 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7800
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	32 GB+700%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	576 GB/s+350%
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	6 MB+500%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (Radeon PRO W7800). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7800
DirectX	12	12.2+2%
Vulkan	1.4+8%	1.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs VCN 4.0 (Radeon PRO W7800). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs VCN 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Radeon PRO W7800).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7800
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	VCN 4.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	VCN 4.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Radeon PRO W7800's 260W — a 110.4% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 650W (Radeon PRO W7800). Power connectors: None vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Radeon PRO W7800
TDP	75W-71%	260W
Recommended PSU	300W-54%	650W
Power Connector	None	2x 8-pin
Length	229mm	267mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C-13%	80°C
Perf/Watt	104.9	104.5

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Radeon PRO W7800 launched at $2499 and now averages $2200. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 96.6% less ($2125 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.4 (Radeon PRO W7800) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 746% better value. The Radeon PRO W7800 is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2019).