GeForce GTX 1650 vs FirePro W8100

Place in the ranking	289	264
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	39.44
Power efficiency	5.98	18.84
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Hawaii	TU117
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	23 June 2014 (10 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

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

Pipelines / CUDA cores	2560	896
Core clock speed	824 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	6,200 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	220 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	131.8	93.24
Floating-point processing power	4.219 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	160	56

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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	279 mm	229 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Form factor	full height / full length	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	None

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 type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	512 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	320 GB/s	128.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	4x DisplayPort, 1x SDI	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+
StereoOutput3D	+	-
DisplayPort count	4	no data
Dual-link DVI support	+	-
HD сomponent video output	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	-	7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

FirePro W8100 19.00

GTX 1650 20.40
+7.4%

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.

FirePro W8100 7332

GTX 1650 7873
+7.4%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

FirePro W8100 34705

GTX 1650 39209
+13%

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 HD	60−65 −11.7%	67 +11.7%
1440p	30−35 −23.3%	37 +23.3%
4K	21−24 −14.3%	24 +14.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.22
1440p	no data	4.03
4K	no data	6.21

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−35

+0%

30−35

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	53 +0%	53 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	47 +0%	47 +0%
Battlefield 5	79 +0%	79 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	52 +0%	52 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	64 +0%	64 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	80 +0%	80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	229 +0%	229 +0%
Hitman 3	49 +0%	49 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	292 +0%	292 +0%
Metro Exodus	101 +0%	101 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	77 +0%	77 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	115 +0%	115 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	224 +0%	224 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	83 +0%	83 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35 +0%	35 +0%
Battlefield 5	72 +0%	72 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	46 +0%	46 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	52 +0%	52 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	56 +0%	56 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	201 +0%	201 +0%
Hitman 3	47 +0%	47 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	260 +0%	260 +0%
Metro Exodus	71 +0%	71 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55 +0%	55 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	74 +0%	74 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	206 +0%	206 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	25 +0%	25 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +0%	13 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8 +0%	8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Far Cry 5	39 +0%	39 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65 +0%	65 +0%
Hitman 3	41 +0%	41 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60 +0%	60 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	62 +0%	62 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	42 +0%	42 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21 +0%	21 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	42 +0%	42 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	36 +0%	36 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18 +0%	18 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +0%	13 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	24 +0%	24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	122 +0%	122 +0%
Hitman 3	27 +0%	27 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	43 +0%	43 +0%
Metro Exodus	41 +0%	41 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45 +0%	45 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	145 +0%	145 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	20 +0%	20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	17 +0%	17 +0%
Hitman 3	13 +0%	13 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	41 +0%	41 +0%
Metro Exodus	27 +0%	27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	26 +0%	26 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	13 +0%	13 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5 +0%	5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	12 +0%	12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +0%	30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	26 +0%	26 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8 +0%	8 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

This is how FirePro W8100 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 12% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 23% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 14% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	19.00	20.40
Recency	23 June 2014	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	220 Watt	75 Watt

FirePro W8100 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 7.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 193.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between FirePro W8100 and GeForce GTX 1650.

Be aware that FirePro W8100 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.