Radeon PRO W7700 vs GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER with Radeon PRO W7700, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1650 SUPER
2019
4 GB GDDR6, 125 Watt
26.34

PRO W7700 outperforms GTX 1650 SUPER by an impressive 92% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking20557
Place by popularity65not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data58.21
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)RDNA 3.0 (2023−2024)
GPU code nameTU116Navi 32
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date29 October 2019 (4 years ago)13 November 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$999

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 cores12803072
Core clock speed1530 MHz1900 MHz
Boost clock speed1725 MHz2600 MHz
Number of transistors6,600 million28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt190 Watt
Texture fill rate138.0499.2
Floating-point processing power4.416 gflopsno data
ROPs3296
TMUs80192

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 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length229 mm241 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed12000 MHz18 GB/s
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/s576.0 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort4x DisplayPort 2.1
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready+no data
Multi Monitor+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA7.5-

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.

GTX 1650 SUPER 26.34
PRO W7700 50.50
+91.7%

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 SUPER 10158
PRO W7700 19480
+91.8%

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 HD73
−78.1%
130−140
+78.1%
1440p35
−85.7%
65−70
+85.7%
4K22
−81.8%
40−45
+81.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 63
−90.5%
120−130
+90.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 55−60
−75.4%
100−105
+75.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 53
−88.7%
100−105
+88.7%
Battlefield 5 85−90
−86%
160−170
+86%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
−85.2%
100−105
+85.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 50
−90%
95−100
+90%
Far Cry 5 60−65
−83.3%
110−120
+83.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
−91.2%
130−140
+91.2%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
−85.4%
280−290
+85.4%
Hitman 3 62
−77.4%
110−120
+77.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
−91.7%
230−240
+91.7%
Metro Exodus 69
−88.4%
130−140
+88.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 84
−90.5%
160−170
+90.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 90−95
−88.9%
170−180
+88.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 180
−66.7%
300−310
+66.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 55−60
−75.4%
100−105
+75.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 26
−73.1%
45−50
+73.1%
Battlefield 5 85−90
−86%
160−170
+86%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
−85.2%
100−105
+85.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 40
−87.5%
75−80
+87.5%
Far Cry 5 60−65
−83.3%
110−120
+83.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
−91.2%
130−140
+91.2%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
−85.4%
280−290
+85.4%
Hitman 3 59
−86.4%
110−120
+86.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
−91.7%
230−240
+91.7%
Metro Exodus 82
−82.9%
150−160
+82.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
−91.2%
130−140
+91.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 101
−88.1%
190−200
+88.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
−78.6%
100−105
+78.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 180
−66.7%
300−310
+66.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 55−60
−75.4%
100−105
+75.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 15
−80%
27−30
+80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
−85.2%
100−105
+85.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 34
−91.2%
65−70
+91.2%
Far Cry 5 60−65
−83.3%
110−120
+83.3%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
−85.4%
280−290
+85.4%
Hitman 3 53
−88.7%
100−105
+88.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 83
−80.7%
150−160
+80.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 83
−80.7%
150−160
+80.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50
−90%
95−100
+90%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21
−90.5%
40−45
+90.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 66
−81.8%
120−130
+81.8%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
−90%
95−100
+90%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
−87.5%
75−80
+87.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
−85.2%
50−55
+85.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
−84.6%
24−27
+84.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−33
−83.3%
55−60
+83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 20
−75%
35−40
+75%
Far Cry 5 30−33
−83.3%
55−60
+83.3%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
−85.4%
280−290
+85.4%
Hitman 3 34
−91.2%
65−70
+91.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60
−83.3%
110−120
+83.3%
Metro Exodus 55
−81.8%
100−105
+81.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60
−83.3%
110−120
+83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
−81.8%
60−65
+81.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 164
−82.9%
300−310
+82.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 44
−81.8%
80−85
+81.8%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
−73.1%
45−50
+73.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
−90.5%
40−45
+90.5%
Hitman 3 34
−91.2%
65−70
+91.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
−86.6%
250−260
+86.6%
Metro Exodus 32
−87.5%
60−65
+87.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 32
−87.5%
60−65
+87.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
−87.5%
30−33
+87.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5
−80%
9−10
+80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
−80%
27−30
+80%
Cyberpunk 2077 3
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 14−16
−80%
27−30
+80%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−80.6%
65−70
+80.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30
−83.3%
55−60
+83.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8
−75%
14−16
+75%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21
−90.5%
40−45
+90.5%

This is how GTX 1650 SUPER and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7700 is 78% faster in 1080p
  • PRO W7700 is 86% faster in 1440p
  • PRO W7700 is 82% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 26.34 50.50
Recency 29 October 2019 13 November 2023
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 190 Watt

GTX 1650 SUPER has 52% lower power consumption.

PRO W7700, on the other hand, has a 91.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is a desktop card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.


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

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.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
AMD Radeon PRO W7700
Radeon PRO W7700

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


4.1 4565 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 3 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.