RTX A4500 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 with RTX A4500, including specs and performance data.
RTX A4500 outperforms GTX 1650 by a whopping 169% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 314 | 66 |
| Place by popularity | 5 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 29.42 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 19.11 | 19.29 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | GA102 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (6 years ago) | 23 November 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 896 | 7168 |
| Core clock speed | 1485 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1665 MHz | 1650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 200 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 93.24 | 369.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.984 TFLOPS | 23.65 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 96 |
| TMUs | 56 | 224 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 224 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | 7 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 6 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 20 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 640.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 | 64
−166%
| 170−180
+166%
|
| 1440p | 38
−163%
| 100−110
+163%
|
| 4K | 24
−150%
| 60−65
+150%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.33 | no data |
| 1440p | 3.92 | no data |
| 4K | 6.21 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−169%
|
290−300
+169%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−168%
|
110−120
+168%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−157%
|
95−100
+157%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 61
−162%
|
160−170
+162%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−169%
|
290−300
+169%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−168%
|
110−120
+168%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 69
−161%
|
180−190
+161%
|
| Fortnite | 211
−161%
|
550−600
+161%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90
−167%
|
240−250
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 73
−160%
|
190−200
+160%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−157%
|
95−100
+157%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90
−167%
|
240−250
+167%
|
| Valorant | 292
−157%
|
750−800
+157%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 53
−164%
|
140−150
+164%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−169%
|
290−300
+169%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
−160%
|
600−650
+160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−168%
|
110−120
+168%
|
| Dota 2 | 97
−168%
|
260−270
+168%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 63
−154%
|
160−170
+154%
|
| Fortnite | 85
−159%
|
220−230
+159%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 83
−165%
|
220−230
+165%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 62
−158%
|
160−170
+158%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 81
−159%
|
210−220
+159%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−157%
|
95−100
+157%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
−157%
|
90−95
+157%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 86
−167%
|
230−240
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
−168%
|
190−200
+168%
|
| Valorant | 260
−169%
|
700−750
+169%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 51
−155%
|
130−140
+155%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−168%
|
110−120
+168%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
−161%
|
240−250
+161%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
−154%
|
150−160
+154%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65
−162%
|
170−180
+162%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−157%
|
95−100
+157%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 66
−158%
|
170−180
+158%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
−168%
|
110−120
+168%
|
| Valorant | 70
−157%
|
180−190
+157%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 61
−162%
|
160−170
+162%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−156%
|
100−105
+156%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−152%
|
350−400
+152%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
−150%
|
100−105
+150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
−150%
|
50−55
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−163%
|
450−500
+163%
|
| Valorant | 177
−154%
|
450−500
+154%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 39
−156%
|
100−105
+156%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−150%
|
45−50
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
−150%
|
100−105
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46
−161%
|
120−130
+161%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
−162%
|
55−60
+162%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
−158%
|
80−85
+158%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 42
−162%
|
110−120
+162%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−165%
|
45−50
+165%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
−158%
|
85−90
+158%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
−169%
|
70−75
+169%
|
| Valorant | 83
−165%
|
220−230
+165%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
−162%
|
55−60
+162%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−165%
|
45−50
+165%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
−154%
|
150−160
+154%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
−167%
|
80−85
+167%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
−169%
|
70−75
+169%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 11
−145%
|
27−30
+145%
|
This is how GTX 1650 and RTX A4500 compete in popular games:
- RTX A4500 is 166% faster in 1080p
- RTX A4500 is 163% faster in 1440p
- RTX A4500 is 150% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.81 | 47.95 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 23 November 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 20 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 200 Watt |
GTX 1650 has 166.7% lower power consumption.
RTX A4500, on the other hand, has a 169.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 400% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 50% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A4500 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 RTX A4500 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.
