Radeon Pro Vega II vs GeForce GTX 1650

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
1630 1650 1650 GDDR6 1650 SUPER 1650 TU106 1650 TU116
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Instinct MI50 Instinct MI60 Pro Vega II Pro Vega II Duo Pro VII

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 with Radeon Pro Vega II, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1650
2019, $149
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
18.84
Pro Vega II
2019, $2,199
32 GB HBM2, 475 Watt
37.41
+98.6%

Pro II outperforms GTX 1650 by an impressive 99% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
GTX 1650 GTX 1650
Pro Vega II Pro Vega II

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking333142
Place by popularity5not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation22.205.49
Power efficiency19.516.12
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameTU117Vega 20
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date23 April 2019 (7 years ago)3 June 2019 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 $2,199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

GTX 1650 has 304% better value for money than Pro Vega II.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores8964096
Core clock speed1485 MHz1574 MHz
Boost clock speed1665 MHz1720 MHz
Number of transistors4,700 million13,230 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt475 Watt
Texture fill rate93.24440.3
Floating-point processing power2.984 TFLOPS14.09 TFLOPS
ROPs3264
TMUs56256
L1 Cache896 KB1 MB
L2 Cache1024 KB4 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16Apple MPX
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotQuad-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5HBM2
Maximum RAM amount4 GB32 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit4096 Bit
Memory clock speed2000 MHz806 MHz
Memory bandwidth128.0 GB/s825.3 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt
HDMI++

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.56.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA7.5-

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

GTX 1650 18.84
Pro Vega II 37.41
+98.6%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 1650 7867
Samples: 38887
Pro Vega II 15618
+98.5%
Samples: 8

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD61
−49.2%
120−130
1440p3875−80
+97.4%
4K2445−50
+87.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.44
+86.7%
18.33
1440p3.92
+86.6%
29.32
4K6.21
+87.3%
48.87
  • GTX 1650 has 87% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 has 87% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 has 87% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 50−55 100−105
+96.1%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110 210−220
+94.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 80−85
+95.1%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 40−45 85−90
+97.7%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 50−55 100−105
+96.1%
Battlefield 5 61 120−130
+96.7%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110 210−220
+94.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 80−85
+95.1%
Far Cry 5 69 130−140
+88.4%
Fortnite 211 400−450
+89.6%
Forza Horizon 4 90 170−180
+88.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90 170−180
+88.9%
Valorant 292 550−600
+88.4%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 50−55 100−105
+96.1%
Battlefield 5 53 100−105
+88.7%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110 210−220
+94.4%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240 450−500
+94.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 80−85
+95.1%
Dota 2 97 190−200
+95.9%
Far Cry 5 63 120−130
+90.5%
Fortnite 85 160−170
+88.2%
Forza Horizon 4 83 160−170
+92.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 81 160−170
+97.5%
Metro Exodus 35 65−70
+85.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 86 170−180
+97.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 71 140−150
+97.2%
Valorant 260 500−550
+92.3%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 51 100−105
+96.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 80−85
+95.1%
Dota 2 92 180−190
+95.7%
Far Cry 5 59 110−120
+86.4%
Forza Horizon 4 65 120−130
+84.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 66 130−140
+97%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 41 80−85
+95.1%
Valorant 70 130−140
+85.7%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 61 120−130
+96.7%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 35−40 75−80
+92.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140 270−280
+94.2%
Grand Theft Auto V 40 75−80
+87.5%
Metro Exodus 20 35−40
+75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170 300−310
+78.6%
Valorant 177 350−400
+97.7%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 39 75−80
+92.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 35−40
+94.4%
Far Cry 5 40 75−80
+87.5%
Forza Horizon 4 46 90−95
+95.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31 60−65
+93.5%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 42 80−85
+90.5%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 14−16 27−30
+80%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18 30−33
+76.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 33 65−70
+97%
Metro Exodus 12 21−24
+75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26 50−55
+92.3%
Valorant 83 160−170
+92.8%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21 40−45
+90.5%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18 30−33
+76.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9 14−16
+75%
Dota 2 59 110−120
+86.4%
Far Cry 5 19 35−40
+84.2%
Forza Horizon 4 30 55−60
+83.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 26 50−55
+92.3%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 11 21−24
+90.9%

This is how GTX 1650 and Pro Vega II compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega II is 97% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega II is 97% faster in 1440p
  • Pro Vega II is 88% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 18.84 37.41
Recency 23 April 2019 3 June 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 475 Watt

GTX 1650 has 84% lower power consumption.

Pro Vega II, on the other hand, has a 99% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 month, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro Vega II is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega II is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

GTX 1650 GeForce GTX 1650
vs
GTX 780 GeForce GTX 780
Pro Vega II Radeon Pro Vega II
vs
Pro W5700X Radeon Pro W5700X
GTX 1650 GeForce GTX 1650
vs
RX 6400 Radeon RX 6400
Playstation 3 RSX NVIDIA 3 RSX
vs
Iris Xe Graphics 64EUs (Alder Lake) 64EUs (Alder Lake)
Playstation 3 RSX NVIDIA 3 RSX
vs
RTX 5080 5080
Playstation 3 RSX NVIDIA 3 RSX
vs
RTX PRO 6000 6000
Radeon VII Radeon VII
vs
Pro 5600M 5600M
Radeon VII Radeon VII
vs
RTX 5050 Mobile 5050 Mobile
GTX 1650 NVIDIA GTX 1650
vs
Xe DG1 OEM OEM
GTX 1650 NVIDIA GTX 1650
vs
Graphics 2 Xe3 Wildcat Lake iGPU Xe3 Wildcat Lake iGPU
GTX 1650 Max-Q NVIDIA GTX 1650 Max-Q
vs
RTX A5500 Mobile A5500 Mobile
GTX 1660 Ti NVIDIA GTX 1660 Ti
vs
FirePro D300 D300
GTX 1660 Ti NVIDIA GTX 1660 Ti
vs
FirePro D500 D500

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.7 28546 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 81 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega II on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 1650 or Radeon Pro Vega II, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.