
Radeon Pro WX 7130 vs GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design

Radeon Pro WX 7130
Popular choices:

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
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. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Radeon Pro WX 7130 is positioned at rank 183 and the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is on rank 65, so the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon Pro WX 7130
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon Pro WX 7130 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon Pro WX 7130 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.5% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (8 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design.
| Insight | Radeon Pro WX 7130 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.5%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $100 versus $200 for the Radeon Pro WX 7130, it costs 50% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 97% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon Pro WX 7130 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+97%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($200) | ✅More affordable ($100) |
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 7130 and GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design

Radeon Pro WX 7130
The Radeon Pro WX 7130 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 10 2016. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1188 MHz to 1243 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 130W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,406 points. Launch price was $799.

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 2 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1035 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,309 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon Pro WX 7130 scores 6,406 and the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design reaches 6,309 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon Pro WX 7130 is built on GCN 4.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,304 (Radeon Pro WX 7130) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 5.728 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro WX 7130) vs 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Boost clocks: 1243 MHz vs 1200 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 7130 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,406+2% | 6,309 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2304+125% | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.728 TFLOPS+133% | 2.458 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1243 MHz+4% | 1200 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 144+125% | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 0.56 MB | 1 MB+79% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 7130 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| 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 7130 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design has 4 GB. The Radeon Pro WX 7130 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Radeon Pro WX 7130) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) — the Radeon Pro WX 7130 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 7130 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+100% | 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 (12_0) (Radeon Pro WX 7130) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 7130 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 3.4 (Radeon Pro WX 7130) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Decoder: UVD 6.3 vs NVDEC (4th Gen). Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC (Radeon Pro WX 7130) vs H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design).
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 7130 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 3.4 | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | UVD 6.3 | NVDEC (4th Gen) |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon Pro WX 7130 draws 130W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design's 50W — a 88.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon Pro WX 7130) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 7130 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 130W | 50W-62% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 75°C-12% |
| Perf/Watt | 49.3 | 126.2+156% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design costs 50% less ($100 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 32.0 (Radeon Pro WX 7130) vs 63.1 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) — the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers 97.2% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2016).
| Feature | Radeon Pro WX 7130 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1000 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $200 | $100-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 32.0 | 63.1+97% |
| Codename | Ellesmere | TU117 |
| Release | November 10 2016 | April 2 2020 |
| Ranking | #331 | #371 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















