Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs GeForce GTX 1650

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 with Radeon Pro WX 3200, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1650
2019
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
20.48
+226%

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 ranking272581
Place by popularity3not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation37.8312.62
Power efficiency18.846.67
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameTU117Polaris 23
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date23 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 200% 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 cores896640
Core clock speed1485 MHz1082 MHz
Boost clock speed1665 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,700 million2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate93.2434.62
Floating-point processing power2.984 TFLOPS1.385 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs5632

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 3.0 x8
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotMXM Module
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed2000 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth128.0 GB/s64 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 mini-DisplayPort
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_0)
Shader Model6.56.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
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 20.48
+226%
Pro WX 3200 6.28

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 7875
+226%
Pro WX 3200 2414

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.

GTX 1650 13645
+215%
Pro WX 3200 4338

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.

GTX 1650 44694
+256%
Pro WX 3200 12538

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.

GTX 1650 9203
+192%
Pro WX 3200 3156

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.

GTX 1650 50549
+168%
Pro WX 3200 18866

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.

GTX 1650 373333
+253%
Pro WX 3200 105833

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

GTX 1650 91
+315%
Pro WX 3200 22

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

GTX 1650 45
+12.4%
Pro WX 3200 40

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

GTX 1650 6
Pro WX 3200 32
+392%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

GTX 1650 44
+58%
Pro WX 3200 28

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

GTX 1650 35
+2.1%
Pro WX 3200 34

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

GTX 1650 21
+164%
Pro WX 3200 8

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

GTX 1650 51
+189%
Pro WX 3200 18

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

GTX 1650 5
+194%
Pro WX 3200 2

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.

GTX 1650 90
+307%
Pro WX 3200 22

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

GTX 1650 43
+57.2%
Pro WX 3200 28

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

GTX 1650 46
+12.9%
Pro WX 3200 40

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

GTX 1650 7
Pro WX 3200 32
+385%

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

GTX 1650 31
Pro WX 3200 34
+9.6%

SPECviewperf 12 - Medical

GTX 1650 22
+177%
Pro WX 3200 8

SPECviewperf 12 - Energy

GTX 1650 3.6
+125%
Pro WX 3200 1.6

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 HD69
+283%
18
−283%
1440p40
+233%
12−14
−233%
4K23
+156%
9
−156%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.16
+412%
11.06
−412%
1440p3.73
+345%
16.58
−345%
4K6.48
+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
+164%
14−16
−164%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+242%
12−14
−242%
Elden Ring 65−70
+306%
16−18
−306%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 66
+230%
20−22
−230%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+164%
14−16
−164%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Forza Horizon 4 94
+262%
24−27
−262%
Metro Exodus 66
+313%
16−18
−313%
Red Dead Redemption 2 77
+328%
18−20
−328%
Valorant 85
+347%
18−20
−347%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75
+275%
20−22
−275%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+164%
14−16
−164%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Dota 2 82
+413%
16
−413%
Elden Ring 65−70
+306%
16−18
−306%
Far Cry 5 90
+500%
15
−500%
Fortnite 82
+122%
35−40
−122%
Forza Horizon 4 74
+185%
24−27
−185%
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
+142%
18−20
−142%
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
+164%
14−16
−164%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 92
+163%
35
−163%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+134%
27−30
−134%
Forza Horizon 4 62
+138%
24−27
−138%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 61
+17.3%
50−55
−17.3%
Valorant 70
+268%
18−20
−268%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 30−35
+433%
6−7
−433%
Elden Ring 30−35
+325%
8−9
−325%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+450%
6−7
−450%
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
+245%
10−12
−245%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+40%
5−6
−40%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+331%
12−14
−331%
Forza Horizon 4 45
+309%
10−12
−309%
Metro Exodus 41
+413%
8−9
−413%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+300%
7−8
−300%
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%
Elden Ring 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
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 24−27
+271%
7−8
−271%
Fortnite 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
Forza Horizon 4 26
+333%
6−7
−333%
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.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is ahead in 60 tests (98%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.48 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 226.1% 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.

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
GeForce GTX 1650
AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
Radeon Pro WX 3200

Other comparisons

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.


3.8 24308 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 85 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 3200 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.