
Radeon Pro 5300 vs GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)

Radeon Pro 5300
Popular choices:

GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)
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. The Radeon Pro 5300 is positioned at rank 64 and the GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) is on rank 50, so the GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon Pro 5300
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon Pro 5300 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.3% 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 (Mobile).
| Insight | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.3%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $150 for the Radeon Pro 5300, it costs 50% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 95.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+95.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅More affordable ($75) |
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 Radeon Pro 5300 and GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)

Radeon Pro 5300
The Radeon Pro 5300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 4 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1650 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 85W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,125 points.

GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)
The GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1350 MHz to 1485 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,968 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon Pro 5300 scores 7,125 and the GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) reaches 6,968 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon Pro 5300 is built on RDNA 1.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) uses Turing, both on 7 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (Radeon Pro 5300) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)). Raw compute: 4.224 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 5300) vs 3.041 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)). Boost clocks: 1650 MHz vs 1485 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,125+2% | 6,968 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280+25% | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.224 TFLOPS+39% | 3.041 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1650 MHz+11% | 1485 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80+25% | 64 |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Radeon Pro 5300) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)) — the Radeon Pro 5300 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Radeon Pro 5300) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCN 2.0 (Radeon Pro 5300) vs NVENC 6th Gen (Volta/Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)). Decoder: VCN 2.0 vs NVDEC 4th Gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Radeon Pro 5300) vs H.264,H.265,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)).
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCN 2.0 | NVENC 6th Gen (Volta/Turing) |
| Decoder | VCN 2.0 | NVDEC 4th Gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | H.264,H.265,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon Pro 5300 draws 85W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)'s 50W — a 51.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon Pro 5300) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 0mm, occupying 0 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 85W | 50W-41% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 0mm |
| Height | 0mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 87 |
| Perf/Watt | 83.8 | 139.4+66% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) costs 50% less ($75 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 47.5 (Radeon Pro 5300) vs 92.9 (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)) — the GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) offers 95.6% better value.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $300 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $75-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 47.5 | 92.9+96% |
| Codename | Navi 14 | TU116 |
| Release | August 4 2020 | April 23 2020 |
| Ranking | #351 | #324 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















