GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon Pro W6600X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W6600X with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6600X outperforms GTX 1650 by an impressive 66% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 158 | 279 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 54.27 | 37.77 |
| Power efficiency | 19.58 | 18.83 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Navi 23 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 August 2021 (3 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Pro W6600X has 44% better value for money than GTX 1650.
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 | 2048 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 2068 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2479 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,060 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 317.3 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.15 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 56 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | no data |
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 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 128.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 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.
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 | 110−120
+61.8%
| 68
−61.8%
|
| 1440p | 65−70
+62.5%
| 40
−62.5%
|
| 4K | 35−40
+52.2%
| 23
−52.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.35
−190%
| 2.19
+190%
|
| 1440p | 10.75
−189%
| 3.73
+189%
|
| 4K | 19.97
−208%
| 6.48
+208%
|
- GTX 1650 has 190% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1650 has 189% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1650 has 208% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
This is how Pro W6600X and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- Pro W6600X is 62% faster in 1080p
- Pro W6600X is 63% faster in 1440p
- Pro W6600X is 52% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 33.76 | 20.29 |
| Recency | 3 August 2021 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 75 Watt |
Pro W6600X has a 66.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 1650, on the other hand, has 60% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W6600X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W6600X is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
