Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 with Radeon Pro WX 3200, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 outperforms Pro WX 3200 by a whopping 226% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 273 | 583 |
| Place by popularity | 3 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 38.24 | 12.82 |
| Power efficiency | 18.84 | 6.66 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | Polaris 23 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 2 July 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1650 has 198% better value for money than Pro WX 3200.
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 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 1485 MHz | 1082 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1665 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 93.24 | 34.62 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.984 TFLOPS | 1.385 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 32 |
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 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | MXM Module |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 64 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| 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. 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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
SPECviewperf 12 - Maya
This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.
SPECviewperf 12 - Catia
SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks
SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX
SPECviewperf 12 - Creo
SPECviewperf 12 - Medical
SPECviewperf 12 - Energy
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
+283%
| 18
−283%
|
| 1440p | 40
+233%
| 12−14
−233%
|
| 4K | 23
+156%
| 9
−156%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.16
+412%
| 11.06
−412%
|
| 1440p | 3.73
+345%
| 16.58
−345%
|
| 4K | 6.48
+241%
| 22.11
−241%
|
- GTX 1650 has 412% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1650 has 345% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1650 has 241% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+215%
|
12−14
−215%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+230%
|
20−22
−230%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 94
+262%
|
24−27
−262%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+329%
|
14−16
−329%
|
| Metro Exodus | 66
+313%
|
16−18
−313%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 77
+328%
|
18−20
−328%
|
| Valorant | 85
+305%
|
21−24
−305%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75
+275%
|
20−22
−275%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 82
+413%
|
16
−413%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90
+500%
|
15
−500%
|
| Fortnite | 82
+122%
|
35−40
−122%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 74
+185%
|
24−27
−185%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+293%
|
14−16
−293%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75
+257%
|
21−24
−257%
|
| Metro Exodus | 44
+1000%
|
4
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+163%
|
50−55
−163%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 28
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+225%
|
20−22
−225%
|
| Valorant | 46
+119%
|
21−24
−119%
|
| World of Tanks | 230−240
+137%
|
95−100
−137%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+175%
|
20−22
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+163%
|
35
−163%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+134%
|
27−30
−134%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 62
+138%
|
24−27
−138%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 41
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 61
+17.3%
|
50−55
−17.3%
|
| Valorant | 70
+233%
|
21−24
−233%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+371%
|
7−8
−371%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+371%
|
7−8
−371%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+365%
|
35−40
−365%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
+209%
|
45−50
−209%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+280%
|
10−11
−280%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+331%
|
12−14
−331%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45
+275%
|
12−14
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+256%
|
9−10
−256%
|
| Metro Exodus | 41
+413%
|
8−9
−413%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+222%
|
9−10
−222%
|
| Valorant | 40
+150%
|
16−18
−150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
+70.6%
|
16−18
−70.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+70.6%
|
16−18
−70.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+244%
|
18−20
−244%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+70.6%
|
16−18
−70.6%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+556%
|
9
−556%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Valorant | 21
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
This is how GTX 1650 and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 283% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 233% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 156% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 1000% faster.
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro WX 3200 is 8% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 60 tests (97%)
- Pro WX 3200 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.49 | 6.28 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 2 July 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 65 Watt |
GTX 1650 has a 226.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
Pro WX 3200, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, and 15.4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 3200 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro WX 3200 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
