GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon Pro Vega 48

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 48 with GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega 48
2019
8 GB HBM2
29.38
+75.2%

Pro Vega 48 outperforms GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q by an impressive 75% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking194328
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data23.14
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega 10TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date19 March 2019 (5 years ago)2 April 2020 (4 years ago)

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 cores30721024
Core clock speed1200 MHz1035 MHz
Boost clock speed1300 MHz1200 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data50 Watt
Texture fill rate249.676.80
Floating-point processing power7.987 TFLOPS2.458 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs19264

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed786 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/s160.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.1.1251.2.140
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.

Pro Vega 48 29.38
+75.2%
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 16.77

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.

Pro Vega 48 11299
+75.2%
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 6449

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 HD95−100
+69.6%
56
−69.6%
1440p60−65
+66.7%
36
−66.7%
4K40−45
+66.7%
24
−66.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Elden Ring 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
+0%
17
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 77
+0%
77
+0%
Metro Exodus 56
+0%
56
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 63
+0%
63
+0%
Valorant 91
+0%
91
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+0%
13
+0%
Dota 2 82
+0%
82
+0%
Elden Ring 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 67
+0%
67
+0%
Fortnite 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 62
+0%
62
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 67
+0%
67
+0%
Metro Exodus 38
+0%
38
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Valorant 42
+0%
42
+0%
World of Tanks 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Dota 2 106
+0%
106
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 54
+0%
54
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 26
+0%
26
+0%
Elden Ring 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 26
+0%
26
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
World of Tanks 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35
+0%
35
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 25
+0%
25
+0%
Elden Ring 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 25
+0%
25
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 25
+0%
25
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 52
+0%
52
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21
+0%
21
+0%
Valorant 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

This is how Pro Vega 48 and GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 48 is 70% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega 48 is 67% faster in 1440p
  • Pro Vega 48 is 67% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 29.38 16.77
Recency 19 March 2019 2 April 2020
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm

Pro Vega 48 has a 75.2% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro Vega 48 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 48 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is a mobile 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.


AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48
Radeon Pro Vega 48
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q

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.


3.7 75 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 48 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 214 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 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.