Radeon PRO W6400 vs GeForce GTX 1650

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 W6400 is positioned at rank #33 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Great cost-benefit for your build. 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 Radeon PRO W6400

#9

Intel Arc Pro B50

MSRP: $349|Avg: $349

95%

#11

Quadro RTX 4000 (móvel)

MSRP: $900|Avg: $300

90%

#16

Radeon PRO W7500

MSRP: $429|Avg: $401

84%

#18

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

401%

#18

Radeon Pro V520 MxGPU

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $340

83%

#19

RTX A2000 12GB

MSRP: $449|Avg: $380

83%

#20

Radeon Pro Vega 56

MSRP: $399|Avg: $60

82%

#21

RTX A2000

MSRP: $450|Avg: $320

81%

#33

Radeon PRO W6400

MSRP: $229|Avg: $200

100%

#36

T600

MSRP: $200|Avg: $180

87%

#43

P106-100

MSRP: $224|Avg: $30

80%

#48

Quadro K3100M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $400

78%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Radeon PRO W6400 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 7.1% 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.

Insight	Radeon PRO W6400	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+7.1%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-7.1%)
Longevity	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (6nm)	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	🎮 High Capacity (4 GB)	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
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 $200 for the Radeon PRO W6400, it costs 63% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 149% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	Radeon PRO W6400	GeForce GTX 1650
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+149%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($200)	✅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.

Radeon PRO W6400 Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon PRO W6400 and GeForce GTX 1650

Radeon PRO W6400

The Radeon PRO W6400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 19 2022. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2331 MHz to 2331 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,428 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 W6400 scores 8,428 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the Radeon PRO W6400 leads by 7.1%. The Radeon PRO W6400 is built on RDNA 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 6 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 768 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 3.58 TFLOPS (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 2331 MHz vs 1665 MHz.

Feature	Radeon PRO W6400	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	8,428+7%	7,869
Architecture	RDNA 2.0	Turing
Process Node	6 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	768	896+17%
Compute (TFLOPS)	3.58 TFLOPS+20%	2.984 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	2331 MHz+40%	1665 MHz
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	48	56+17%
L1 Cache	256 KB	896 KB+250%
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon PRO W6400	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: 256-bit vs 128-bit.

Feature	Radeon PRO W6400	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR5
Bus Width	256-bit+100%	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12.2 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.

Feature	Radeon PRO W6400	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	12.2+2%	12
Vulkan	1.2	1.4+17%
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	2	3+50%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VCN 3.0 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: VCN 3.0 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (Radeon PRO W6400) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	Radeon PRO W6400	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	VCN 3.0	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	VCN 3.0	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode)	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon PRO W6400 draws 50W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 40% difference. The Radeon PRO W6400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 168mm vs 229mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 70°C.

Feature	Radeon PRO W6400	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	50W-33%	75W
Recommended PSU	500W	300W-40%
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	None
Length	168mm	229mm
Height	69mm	111mm
Slots	1-50%	2
Temp (Load)	70°C	70°C
Perf/Watt	168.6+61%	104.9

💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon PRO W6400 launched at $229 MSRP and currently averages $200, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 62.5% less ($125 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 42.1 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 149.2% better value. The Radeon PRO W6400 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2019).