Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon Pro WX 2100
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 WX 2100 is positioned at rank #118 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 WX 2100
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1650 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 320.6% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon Pro WX 2100.
| Insight | Radeon Pro WX 2100 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-320.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+320.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $45), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 152.3% better value per dollar than the Radeon Pro WX 2100.
| Insight | Radeon Pro WX 2100 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+152.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($45) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($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 WX 2100 and GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon Pro WX 2100
The Radeon Pro WX 2100 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 4 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 925 MHz to 1219 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 35W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,871 points. Launch price was $149.
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 WX 2100 scores 1,871 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 320.6%. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 is built on GCN 4.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 512 (Radeon Pro WX 2100) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 1.248 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro WX 2100) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1219 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 2100 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,871 | 7,869+321% |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 512 | 896+75% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.248 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+139% |
| Boost Clock | 1219 MHz | 1665 MHz+37% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 32 | 56+75% |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 896 KB+600% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 2100 | 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)
The Radeon Pro WX 2100 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Radeon Pro WX 2100) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 2100 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_0) (Radeon Pro WX 2100) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 2100 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 3.4 (Polaris) (Radeon Pro WX 2100) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: UVD 6.3 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC (Radeon Pro WX 2100) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 2100 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 3.4 (Polaris) | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | UVD 6.3 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon Pro WX 2100 draws 35W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 72.7% difference. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon Pro WX 2100) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 168mm vs 229mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 2100 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 35W-53% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 168mm | 229mm |
| Height | 69mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 70°C-13% |
| Perf/Watt | 53.5 | 104.9+96% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon Pro WX 2100 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $45, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 costs 40% less ($30 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 41.6 (Radeon Pro WX 2100) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 152.2% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 2100 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $45-40% | $75 |
| Performance per Dollar | 41.6 | 104.9+152% |
| Codename | Lexa | TU117 |
| Release | June 4 2017 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #702 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon Pro WX 2100 and GeForce GTX 1650
