Radeon Pro 5300M vs GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon Pro 5300M
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650
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 5300M is positioned at rank #18 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Excellent 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 5300M
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 34.4% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon Pro 5300M.
| Insight | Radeon Pro 5300M | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-34.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+34.4%) |
| 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 | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 1650 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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 5300M and GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon Pro 5300M
The Radeon Pro 5300M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 13 2019. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1250 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 85W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,853 points.
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.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Radeon Pro 5300M scores 5,853 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 34.4%. The Radeon Pro 5300M is built on RDNA 1.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 7 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (Radeon Pro 5300M) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 3.2 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 5300M) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1250 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300M | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5,853 | 7,869+34% |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280+43% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.2 TFLOPS+7% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1250 MHz | 1665 MHz+33% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80+43% | 56 |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300M | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 5300M) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Radeon Pro 5300M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300M | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 5300M) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300M | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCN 2.0 (Radeon Pro 5300M) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: VCN 2.0 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (Radeon Pro 5300M) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300M | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCN 2.0 | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | VCN 2.0 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon Pro 5300M draws 85W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 12.5% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon Pro 5300M) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5300M | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 85W | 75W-12% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | — | 229mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 68.9 | 104.9+52% |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon Pro 5300M and GeForce GTX 1650
