Radeon Pro 5300 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Radeon Pro 5300
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
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. The Radeon Pro 5300 is positioned at rank #64 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Balanced cost-benefit for your build. 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 Radeon Pro 5300
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon Pro 5300 is significantly newer (2020 vs 2012). The Radeon Pro 5300 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 5.6% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon Pro 5300.
| Insight | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-5.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+5.6%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| 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 Ti offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $77 versus $150 for the Radeon Pro 5300, it costs 49% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 105.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+105.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅More affordable ($77) |
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 Ti
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 Ti
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 9 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 928 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,525 points. Launch price was $149.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Radeon Pro 5300 scores 7,125 versus the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti's 7,525 — the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti leads by 5.6%. The Radeon Pro 5300 is built on RDNA 1.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti uses Kepler, both on 7 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (Radeon Pro 5300) vs 768 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Raw compute: 4.224 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 5300) vs 1.425 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti).
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,125 | 7,525+6% |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280+67% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.224 TFLOPS+196% | 1.425 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 80+25% | 64 |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+700% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GDDR6. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Radeon Pro 5300) vs 0.25 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) — the Radeon Pro 5300 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+700% | 0.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Radeon Pro 5300) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). 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 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| 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 6 (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Decoder: VCN 2.0 vs NVDEC 4. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Radeon Pro 5300) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti).
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCN 2.0 | NVENC 6 (Volta) |
| Decoder | VCN 2.0 | NVDEC 4 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon Pro 5300 draws 85W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti's 50W — a 51.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon Pro 5300) vs 0W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 0mm, occupying 0 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 85W | 50W-41% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 0W-100% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 0mm | 0mm |
| Height | 0mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75 |
| Perf/Watt | 83.8 | 150.5+80% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon Pro 5300 launched at $300 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti launched at $150 and now averages $77. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti costs 48.7% less ($73 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 47.5 (Radeon Pro 5300) vs 97.7 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) — the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers 105.7% better value. The Radeon Pro 5300 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2012).
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $300 | $150-50% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $77-49% |
| Performance per Dollar | 47.5 | 97.7+106% |
| Codename | Navi 14 | GK106 |
| Release | August 4 2020 | October 9 2012 |
| Ranking | #351 | #633 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon Pro 5300 and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
