GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs Radeon Pro W6600X

Place in the ranking	160	215
Place by popularity	not in top-100	48
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	54.26	no data
Power efficiency	19.55	18.18
Architecture	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Navi 23	TU116
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	3 August 2021 (3 years ago)	22 November 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$699	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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	1280
Core clock speed	2068 MHz	1530 MHz
Boost clock speed	2479 MHz	1725 MHz
Number of transistors	11,060 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	317.3	138.0
Floating-point processing power	10.15 TFLOPS	4.416 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	128	80
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	1x 6-pin

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	2000 MHz	12000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	256.0 GB/s	192.0 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	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Ready	no data	+
Multi Monitor	no data	+

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. 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 W6600X 31.82
+29%

GTX 1650 SUPER 24.66

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 W6600X 13113
+29%

GTX 1650 SUPER 10164

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	90−95 +28.6%	70 −28.6%
1440p	45−50 +25%	36 −25%
4K	27−30 +17.4%	23 −17.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	7.77	no data
1440p	15.53	no data
4K	25.89	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	61 +0%	61 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	63 +0%	63 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	48 +0%	48 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	47 +0%	47 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	121 +0%	121 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	75 +0%	75 +0%
Metro Exodus	89 +0%	89 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	84 +0%	84 +0%
Valorant	115 +0%	115 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	39 +0%	39 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	38 +0%	38 +0%
Dota 2	138 +0%	138 +0%
Far Cry 5	151 +0%	151 +0%
Fortnite	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	101 +0%	101 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	75 +0%	75 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	103 +0%	103 +0%
Metro Exodus	61 +0%	61 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30 +0%	30 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
World of Tanks	260−270 +0%	260−270 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	35 +0%	35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	32 +0%	32 +0%
Dota 2	191 +0%	191 +0%
Far Cry 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	83 +0%	83 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	51 +0%	51 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	45 +0%	45 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	45 +0%	45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	11 +0%	11 +0%
World of Tanks	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	19 +0%	19 +0%
Far Cry 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	60 +0%	60 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	54 +0%	54 +0%
Metro Exodus	55 +0%	55 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Valorant	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Dota 2	45 +0%	45 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	45 +0%	45 +0%
Metro Exodus	16 +0%	16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45 +0%	45 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	2 +0%	2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 +0%	5 +0%
Dota 2	80 +0%	80 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Fortnite	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +0%	30 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	39 +0%	39 +0%
Valorant	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

This is how Pro W6600X and GTX 1650 SUPER compete in popular games:

Pro W6600X is 29% faster in 1080p
Pro W6600X is 25% faster in 1440p
Pro W6600X is 17% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	31.82	24.66
Recency	3 August 2021	22 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	7 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	120 Watt	100 Watt

Pro W6600X has a 29% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 1650 SUPER, on the other hand, has 20% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro W6600X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro W6600X is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.