Radeon PRO W6300 vs GeForce GTX 1650

Place in performance ranking	253	327
Place by popularity	2	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	18.91	6.16
Architecture	Turing (2018−2021)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2022)
GPU code name	TU117	Navi 24
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)	19 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	no data
Current price	$185 (1.2x MSRP)	$1628

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 has 207% better value for money than PRO W6300.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	896	768
Core clock speed	1485 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1665 MHz	2040 MHz
Number of transistors	4,700 million	5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	93.24	97.92

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 x4
Length	229 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	32 Bit
Memory clock speed	8000 MHz	16 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	128.0 GB/s	64 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported graphics 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	2.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.3
CUDA	7.5	no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 20.40
+33.6%

PRO W6300 15.27

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon PRO W6300 by 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 1650 7880
+33.6%

PRO W6300 5897

GeForce GTX 1650 outperforms Radeon PRO W6300 by 34% in Passmark.

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	69 +38%	50−55 −38%
1440p	37 +37%	27−30 −37%
4K	22 +37.5%	16−18 −37.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−35
+37.5%

24−27

−37.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	53 +51.4%	35−40 −51.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	47 +34.3%	35−40 −34.3%
Battlefield 5	79 +43.6%	55−60 −43.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	52 +48.6%	35−40 −48.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +37.5%	24−27 −37.5%
Far Cry 5	64 +42.2%	45−50 −42.2%
Far Cry New Dawn	80 +45.5%	55−60 −45.5%
Forza Horizon 4	90 +38.5%	65−70 −38.5%
Hitman 3	49 +40%	35−40 −40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	115 +35.3%	85−90 −35.3%
Metro Exodus	101 +34.7%	75−80 −34.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	77 +40%	55−60 −40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	94 +34.3%	70−75 −34.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	56 +40%	40−45 −40%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	47 +34.3%	35−40 −34.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35 +45.8%	24−27 −45.8%
Battlefield 5	72 +44%	50−55 −44%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	46 +53.3%	30−33 −53.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +37.5%	24−27 −37.5%
Far Cry 5	52 +48.6%	35−40 −48.6%
Far Cry New Dawn	56 +40%	40−45 −40%
Forza Horizon 4	201 +34%	150−160 −34%
Hitman 3	38 +40.7%	27−30 −40.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	260 +36.8%	190−200 −36.8%
Metro Exodus	65 +44.4%	45−50 −44.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	63 +40%	45−50 −40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	74 +34.5%	55−60 −34.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	74 +34.5%	55−60 −34.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	206 +37.3%	150−160 −37.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	25 +38.9%	18−20 −38.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8 +60%	5−6 −60%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +37.5%	24−27 −37.5%
Far Cry 5	39 +44.4%	27−30 −44.4%
Forza Horizon 4	65 +44.4%	45−50 −44.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60 +50%	40−45 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	62 +37.8%	45−50 −37.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	42 +40%	30−33 −40%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21 +50%	14−16 −50%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

54
+35%

40−45

−35%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	42 +40%	30−33 −40%
Far Cry New Dawn	50 +42.9%	35−40 −42.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18 +50%	12−14 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	32 +52.4%	21−24 −52.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Far Cry 5	39 +44.4%	27−30 −44.4%
Forza Horizon 4	46 +53.3%	30−33 −53.3%
Hitman 3	27 +50%	18−20 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	43 +43.3%	30−33 −43.3%
Metro Exodus	41 +36.7%	30−33 −36.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45 +50%	30−33 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +50%	16−18 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14 +40%	10−11 −40%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35
+45.8%

24−27

−45.8%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	20 +42.9%	14−16 −42.9%
Far Cry New Dawn	17 +41.7%	12−14 −41.7%
Hitman 3	13 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	13 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	26 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	13 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Far Cry 5	12 +50%	8−9 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +42.9%	21−24 −42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	23 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%
Metro Exodus	21 +50%	14−16 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8 +60%	5−6 −60%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

17
+41.7%

12−14

−41.7%

This is how GTX 1650 and PRO W6300 compete in popular games:

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

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	20.40	15.27
Recency	23 April 2019	19 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	25 Watt