Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 with Radeon AI PRO R9700, including specs and performance data.
AI PRO R9700 outperforms GTX 1650 by a whopping 279% 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 | 313 | 16 |
| Place by popularity | 4 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 29.87 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 19.11 | 18.11 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 4.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | Navi 48 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (6 years ago) | 23 July 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 1485 MHz | 1660 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1665 MHz | 2920 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 53,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 93.24 | 747.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.984 TFLOPS | 47.84 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 128 |
| TMUs | 56 | 256 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 64 |
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 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 16-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 | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2518 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 644.6 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a |
| 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 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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
−275%
| 240−250
+275%
|
| 1440p | 38
−268%
| 140−150
+268%
|
| 4K | 24
−275%
| 90−95
+275%
|
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
−267%
|
400−450
+267%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−266%
|
150−160
+266%
|
| God of War | 35−40
−259%
|
140−150
+259%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 61
−277%
|
230−240
+277%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−267%
|
400−450
+267%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−266%
|
150−160
+266%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 69
−277%
|
260−270
+277%
|
| Fortnite | 211
−255%
|
750−800
+255%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90
−233%
|
300−310
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 73
−270%
|
270−280
+270%
|
| God of War | 35−40
−259%
|
140−150
+259%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90
−233%
|
300−310
+233%
|
| Valorant | 292
−277%
|
1100−1150
+277%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 53
−277%
|
200−210
+277%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
−267%
|
400−450
+267%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
−268%
|
850−900
+268%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−266%
|
150−160
+266%
|
| Dota 2 | 97
−261%
|
350−400
+261%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 63
−265%
|
230−240
+265%
|
| Fortnite | 85
−253%
|
300−310
+253%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 83
−261%
|
300−310
+261%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 62
−271%
|
230−240
+271%
|
| God of War | 35−40
−259%
|
140−150
+259%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 81
−270%
|
300−310
+270%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
−271%
|
130−140
+271%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 86
−249%
|
300−310
+249%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
−266%
|
260−270
+266%
|
| Valorant | 260
−265%
|
950−1000
+265%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 51
−273%
|
190−200
+273%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−266%
|
150−160
+266%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
−226%
|
300−310
+226%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
−273%
|
220−230
+273%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65
−269%
|
240−250
+269%
|
| God of War | 35−40
−259%
|
140−150
+259%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 66
−279%
|
250−260
+279%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
−266%
|
150−160
+266%
|
| Valorant | 70
−271%
|
260−270
+271%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 61
−277%
|
230−240
+277%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−259%
|
140−150
+259%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−260%
|
500−550
+260%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
−275%
|
150−160
+275%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
−275%
|
75−80
+275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−251%
|
600−650
+251%
|
| Valorant | 177
−267%
|
650−700
+267%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 39
−259%
|
140−150
+259%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−261%
|
65−70
+261%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
−275%
|
150−160
+275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46
−270%
|
170−180
+270%
|
| God of War | 21−24
−264%
|
80−85
+264%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
−255%
|
110−120
+255%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 42
−257%
|
150−160
+257%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−253%
|
60−65
+253%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
−264%
|
120−130
+264%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
−265%
|
95−100
+265%
|
| Valorant | 83
−261%
|
300−310
+261%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
−257%
|
75−80
+257%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−253%
|
60−65
+253%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
−273%
|
220−230
+273%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
−268%
|
70−75
+268%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
−267%
|
110−120
+267%
|
| God of War | 14−16
−267%
|
55−60
+267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
−265%
|
95−100
+265%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 11
−264%
|
40−45
+264%
|
This is how GTX 1650 and AI PRO R9700 compete in popular games:
- AI PRO R9700 is 275% faster in 1080p
- AI PRO R9700 is 268% faster in 1440p
- AI PRO R9700 is 275% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.79 | 71.19 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 23 July 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 300 Watt |
GTX 1650 has 300% lower power consumption.
AI PRO R9700, on the other hand, has a 278.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 200% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon AI PRO R9700 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 Radeon AI PRO R9700 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.
