GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon Pro WX 4130

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro WX 4130 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.

Pro WX 4130
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
5.62

GTX 1650 outperforms Pro WX 4130 by a whopping 263% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking596264
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data39.51
Power efficiency7.7818.84
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameBaffinTU117
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date1 March 2017 (7 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores640896
Core clock speed1002 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speed1053 MHz1665 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate42.1293.24
Floating-point processing power1.348 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs4056

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-slot
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 speed1500 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s128.0 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 outputs1x 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.

FreeSync+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
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 WX 4130 5.62
GTX 1650 20.40
+263%

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 WX 4130 2168
GTX 1650 7873
+263%

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 HD18−20
−272%
67
+272%
1440p10−12
−270%
37
+270%
4K6−7
−300%
24
+300%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.22
1440pno data4.03
4Kno data6.21

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−256%
30−35
+256%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
−279%
53
+279%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
−683%
47
+683%
Battlefield 5 14−16
−464%
79
+464%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
−373%
52
+373%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−256%
30−35
+256%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−482%
64
+482%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
−433%
80
+433%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−594%
229
+594%
Hitman 3 10−12
−345%
49
+345%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−785%
292
+785%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−677%
101
+677%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−450%
77
+450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
−505%
115
+505%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−377%
224
+377%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
−493%
83
+493%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
−483%
35
+483%
Battlefield 5 14−16
−414%
72
+414%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
−318%
46
+318%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−256%
30−35
+256%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−373%
52
+373%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
−273%
56
+273%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−509%
201
+509%
Hitman 3 10−12
−327%
47
+327%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−688%
260
+688%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−446%
71
+446%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−293%
55
+293%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
−289%
74
+289%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
−156%
45−50
+156%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−338%
206
+338%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
−78.6%
25
+78.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
−117%
13
+117%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+37.5%
8
−37.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−256%
30−35
+256%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−255%
39
+255%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−97%
65
+97%
Hitman 3 10−12
−273%
41
+273%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−81.8%
60
+81.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
−226%
62
+226%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
−133%
42
+133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+124%
21
−124%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−286%
54
+286%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
−320%
42
+320%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−350%
36
+350%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−260%
18
+260%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 13
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−360%
21−24
+360%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−500%
12−14
+500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−300%
24
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−838%
122
+838%
Hitman 3 9−10
−200%
27
+200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−258%
43
+258%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−1267%
41
+1267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−500%
24−27
+500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−339%
145
+339%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−289%
35
+289%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−400%
20
+400%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−467%
17
+467%
Hitman 3 1−2
−1200%
13
+1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
−356%
41
+356%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1250%
27
+1250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−2500%
26
+2500%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−333%
13
+333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−150%
5
+150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−450%
10−12
+450%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 4−5
Far Cry 5 3−4
−300%
12
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−500%
30
+500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−300%
8
+300%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−183%
17
+183%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45
+0%
45
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 26
+0%
26
+0%

This is how Pro WX 4130 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 272% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 270% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 300% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro WX 4130 is 124% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 2500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro WX 4130 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
  • GTX 1650 is ahead in 66 tests (94%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.62 20.40
Recency 1 March 2017 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 75 Watt

Pro WX 4130 has 50% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 263% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 4130 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 4130 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop 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 WX 4130
Radeon Pro WX 4130
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.6 34 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 4130 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 23134 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 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.