Radeon RX Vega 64 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon RX Vega 64
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. 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
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 RX Vega 64 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon RX Vega 64 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 77.3% 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.
| Insight | Radeon RX Vega 64 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+77.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-77.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)) | 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 | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon RX Vega 64 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $85 (vs $75), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 56.4% better value per dollar than the GeForce GTX 1650.
| Insight | Radeon RX Vega 64 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+56.4%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($85) | ✅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.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon RX Vega 64 and GeForce GTX 1650
Radeon RX Vega 64
The Radeon RX Vega 64 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 7 2017. It features the GCN 5.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1247 MHz to 1546 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 295W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 13,949 points. Launch price was $499.
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 RX Vega 64 scores 13,949 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the Radeon RX Vega 64 leads by 77.3%. The Radeon RX Vega 64 is built on GCN 5.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 4,096 (Radeon RX Vega 64) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 12.66 TFLOPS (Radeon RX Vega 64) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1546 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon RX Vega 64 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 13,949+77% | 7,869 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 4096+357% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 12.66 TFLOPS+324% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1546 MHz | 1665 MHz+8% |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 256+357% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB+14% | 0.88 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+300% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon RX Vega 64 | 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 RX Vega 64 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The Radeon RX Vega 64 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 484 GB/s (Radeon RX Vega 64) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 278.1% advantage for the Radeon RX Vega 64. Bus width: 2048-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 4 MB (Radeon RX Vega 64) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Radeon RX Vega 64 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon RX Vega 64 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+100% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 484 GB/s+278% | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 2048-bit+1500% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+300% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Radeon RX Vega 64) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon RX Vega 64 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.4+27% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 4.0 (Radeon RX Vega 64) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: UVD 7.0 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Radeon RX Vega 64) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Radeon RX Vega 64 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 4.0 | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | UVD 7.0 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon RX Vega 64 draws 295W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 118.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 750W (Radeon RX Vega 64) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 2x 8-pin vs None. Card length: 267mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | Radeon RX Vega 64 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 295W | 75W-75% |
| Recommended PSU | 750W | 300W-60% |
| Power Connector | 2x 8-pin | None |
| Length | 267mm | 229mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 70°C-18% |
| Perf/Watt | 47.3 | 104.9+122% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon RX Vega 64 launched at $499 MSRP and currently averages $85, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 11.8% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 164.1 (Radeon RX Vega 64) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Radeon RX Vega 64 offers 56.4% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | Radeon RX Vega 64 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $499 | $149-70% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $85 | $75-12% |
| Performance per Dollar | 164.1+56% | 104.9 |
| Codename | Vega 10 | TU117 |
| Release | August 7 2017 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #171 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon RX Vega 64 and GeForce GTX 1650
