GeForce GTX 1650 vs FirePro W9000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
FirePro D500 FirePro D700 FirePro S9000 FirePro S9010 FirePro S9050 FirePro S10000 FirePro S10000 Passive FirePro S10000 Passive 12GB FirePro W8000 FirePro W9000 Radeon Sky 700 Radeon Sky 900
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GTX 1650 GTX 1650 GDDR6 GTX 1650 SUPER GTX 1650 TU106 GTX 1650 TU116

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W9000 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.

FirePro W9000
2012
6 GB GDDR5, 350 Watt
15.76

GTX 1650 outperforms W9000 by a significant 28% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
GTX 1650 GTX 1650

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking348279
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.0037.69
Power efficiency4.0118.80
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameTahitiTU117
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date14 June 2012 (12 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,999 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

GTX 1650 has 3669% better value for money than FirePro W9000.

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 cores2048896
Core clock speed975 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1665 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)350 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate124.893.24
Floating-point processing power3.994 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs12856

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length279 mm229 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Form factorfull height / full lengthno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1375 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth264 GB/s128.0 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 Connectors6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDI1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+
StereoOutput3D+-
Dual-link DVI support+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
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.

FirePro W9000 15.76
GTX 1650 20.23
+28.4%

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 W9000 6138
GTX 1650 7880
+28.4%

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 W9000 31775
GTX 1650 39098
+23%

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 HD50−55
−38%
69
+38%
1440p30−35
−36.7%
41
+36.7%
4K18−20
−38.9%
25
+38.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p79.98
−3604%
2.16
+3604%
1440p133.30
−3568%
3.63
+3568%
4K222.17
−3628%
5.96
+3628%
  • GTX 1650 has 3604% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 has 3568% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 has 3628% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Battlefield 5 61
+0%
61
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 69
+0%
69
+0%
Fortnite 211
+0%
211
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90
+0%
90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60
+0%
60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90
+0%
90
+0%
Valorant 292
+0%
292
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Battlefield 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 97
+0%
97
+0%
Far Cry 5 63
+0%
63
+0%
Fortnite 85
+0%
85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 83
+0%
83
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 81
+0%
81
+0%
Metro Exodus 35
+0%
35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 86
+0%
86
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 71
+0%
71
+0%
Valorant 260
+0%
260
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 92
+0%
92
+0%
Far Cry 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65
+0%
65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 41
+0%
41
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 66
+0%
66
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 41
+0%
41
+0%
Valorant 70
+0%
70
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 61
+0%
61
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40
+0%
40
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 177
+0%
177
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 39
+0%
39
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 40
+0%
40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 46
+0%
46
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+0%
31
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 42
+0%
42
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 33
+0%
33
+0%
Metro Exodus 12
+0%
12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+0%
26
+0%
Valorant 83
+0%
83
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 59
+0%
59
+0%
Far Cry 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 26
+0%
26
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 11
+0%
11
+0%

This is how FirePro W9000 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 38% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 37% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 39% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 15.76 20.23
Recency 14 June 2012 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 350 Watt 75 Watt

FirePro W9000 has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 28.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 366.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W9000 in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro W9000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

AMD FirePro W9000
FirePro W9000
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
vs
Tesla M6 Tesla M6
GTX 1650 GeForce GTX 1650
vs
GTX 780 GeForce GTX 780
FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
vs
Quadro K5200 Quadro K5200
FirePro W5000 FirePro W5000
vs
ATI V7800 V7800
FirePro W8000 FirePro W8000
vs
8700M GT 8700M GT
FirePro W8000 FirePro W8000
vs
RX 560 560
FirePro W8000 FirePro W8000
vs
FirePro W7100 W7100
FirePro W8000 FirePro W8000
vs
FirePro V7900 V7900
FirePro W9000 FirePro W9000
vs
W9000 X2 X2
FirePro V3900 FirePro V3900
vs
GT 240 240
FirePro V4900 FirePro V4900
vs
GT 620 620
FirePro V5900 FirePro V5900
vs
K2000M K2000M
FirePro V5900 FirePro V5900
vs
GT 740 740

Community ratings

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

3.4 5 votes

Rate FirePro W9000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 24683 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro W9000 or GeForce GTX 1650, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.