GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs Radeon Pro Duo

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
S7150 S7150 x2 S9300 X2 W7100 Radeon Instinct MI8 Radeon Pro Duo Radeon Pro Duo Polaris Radeon Pro SSG
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GTX 1650 Mobile GTX 1650 Max-Q GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q MX450 25W MX450 30.5W 8Gbps MX450 30.5W 10Gbps T400 Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Duo with GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

Pro Duo
2016, $1,499
8 GB High Bandwidth Memory (HBM), 350 Watt
20.31
+32.7%

Pro Duo outperforms 1650 Max-Q by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
Pro Duo Pro Duo
GTX 1650 Max-Q GTX 1650 Max-Q

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking315388
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.08no data
Power efficiency4.4939.50
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameCapsaicinTU117
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date26 April 2016 (10 years ago)23 April 2019 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,499 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 cores4096 ×21024
Compute units128no data
Core clock speedno data930 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1125 MHz
Number of transistors8,900 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)350 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate256.0 ×272.00
Floating-point processing power8.192 TFLOPS ×22.304 TFLOPS
ROPs64 ×232
TMUs256 ×264
L1 Cache1 MB1 MB
L2 Cache2 MB1024 KB

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length277 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors3x 8-pinNone

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 typeHigh Bandwidth Memory (HBM)GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB ×24 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit ×2128 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth512 GB/s ×2112.1 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
Enduro+-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
ZeroCore+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.06.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.2.140
Mantle+-
CUDA-7.5

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.

Pro Duo 20.31
+32.7%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 15.31

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.

Pro Duo 8461
+32.7%
Samples: 720
GTX 1650 Max-Q 6378
Samples: 2448

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Pro Duo 27110
+249%
GTX 1650 Max-Q 7779

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 HD75−80
+25%
60
−25%
1440p35−40
+16.7%
30
−16.7%
4K21−24
+16.7%
18
−16.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p19.99no data
1440p42.83no data
4K71.38no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Battlefield 5 64
+0%
64
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Fortnite 138
+0%
138
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 74
+0%
74
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85
+0%
85
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Battlefield 5 54
+0%
54
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 167
+0%
167
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 94
+0%
94
+0%
Far Cry 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Fortnite 80
+0%
80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 69
+0%
69
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 56
+0%
56
+0%
Metro Exodus 28
+0%
28
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 71
+0%
71
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 53
+0%
53
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 49
+0%
49
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 88
+0%
88
+0%
Far Cry 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55
+0%
55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 53
+0%
53
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+0%
30
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 59
+0%
59
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 16
+0%
16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 36
+0%
36
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 36
+0%
36
+0%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 10
+0%
10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+0%
18
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 17
+0%
17
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 11
+0%
11
+0%

This is how Pro Duo and GTX 1650 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • Pro Duo is 25% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Duo is 17% faster in 1440p
  • Pro Duo is 17% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 20.31 15.31
Recency 26 April 2016 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 350 Watt 30 Watt

Pro Duo has a 33% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1650 Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 133% more advanced lithography process, and 1067% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Duo is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Duo is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

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

Pro Duo Radeon Pro Duo
vs
Quadro K6000 Quadro K6000
GTX 1650 Max-Q GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
vs
Arc 7-Cores iGPU Arc 7 Cores iGPU
Pro Duo Radeon Pro Duo
vs
Tesla P4 Tesla P4
R7 430 OEM R7 430 OEM
vs
RX 5500M RX 5500M
R7 430 OEM R7 430 OEM
vs
RX 590 GME RX 590 GME
R7 430 OEM R7 430 OEM
vs
9500 GT Rev. 3 9500 GT Rev. 3
R7 450 OEM R7 450 OEM
vs
FX 5900 XT FX 5900 XT
R7 450 OEM R7 450 OEM
vs
FX 4000 FX 4000
Pro Duo Pro Duo
vs
RTX 4080 RTX 4080
Pro Duo Pro Duo
vs
RTX 4090 RTX 4090
R9 380X R9 380X
vs
HD 6670A HD 6670A
R9 380X R9 380X
vs
RTX 4070 Max-Q RTX 4070 Max-Q
R9 390 X2 R9 390 X2
vs
GTX 460 768MB GTX 460 768MB

Community ratings

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

2.2 4406 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Duo on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 732 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

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