Radeon Pro WX 4150 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon Pro WX 4150
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 4150 is positioned at rank #155 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower 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 4150
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 4150 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 197.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon Pro WX 4150.
| Insight | Radeon Pro WX 4150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-197.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+197.8%) |
| 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 (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $120 for the Radeon Pro WX 4150, it costs 38% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 376.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon Pro WX 4150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+376.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($120) | ✅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 WX 4150 and GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon Pro WX 4150
The Radeon Pro WX 4150 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in March 1 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1002 MHz to 1053 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,642 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 WX 4150 scores 2,642 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 197.8%. The Radeon Pro WX 4150 is built on GCN 4.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 896 (Radeon Pro WX 4150) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 1.887 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro WX 4150) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1053 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 4150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,642 | 7,869+198% |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.887 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+58% |
| Boost Clock | 1053 MHz | 1665 MHz+58% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 224 KB | 896 KB+300% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 4150 | 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 GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 4150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_0) (Radeon Pro WX 4150) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 4150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 3.4 (Polaris) (Radeon Pro WX 4150) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: UVD 6.3 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Decode Only) (Radeon Pro WX 4150) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 4150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 3.4 (Polaris) | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | UVD 6.3 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Decode Only) | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon Pro WX 4150 draws 50W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 40% difference. The Radeon Pro WX 4150 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon Pro WX 4150) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 4150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-33% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | — | 229mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | 70°C-7% |
| Perf/Watt | 52.8 | 104.9+99% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon Pro WX 4150 launched at $300 MSRP and currently averages $120, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 37.5% less ($45 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 22.0 (Radeon Pro WX 4150) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 376.8% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 4150 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $300 | $149-50% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $120 | $75-38% |
| Performance per Dollar | 22.0 | 104.9+377% |
| Codename | Baffin | TU117 |
| Release | March 1 2017 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #620 | #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 4150 and GeForce GTX 1650
