GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon RX Vega 56
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 56 and GeForce GTX 1650, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 56 outperforms GTX 1650 by an impressive 67% 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 | 281 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 23.44 | 37.54 |
| Power efficiency | 11.18 | 18.74 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (7 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1650 has 60% better value for money than RX Vega 56.
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 | 3584 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 1156 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1471 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 329.5 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.54 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 224 | 56 |
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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 409.6 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 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 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
SPECviewperf 12 - Catia
SPECviewperf 12 - 3ds Max
This part of SPECviewperf 12 benchmark emulates work with 3DS Max, executing eleven tests in various use scenarios, including architectural modeling and animation for computer games.
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 | 115
+66.7%
| 69
−66.7%
|
| 1440p | 77
+87.8%
| 41
−87.8%
|
| 4K | 50
+100%
| 25
−100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.47
−60.7%
| 2.16
+60.7%
|
| 1440p | 5.18
−42.6%
| 3.63
+42.6%
|
| 4K | 7.98
−33.9%
| 5.96
+33.9%
|
- GTX 1650 has 61% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1650 has 43% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1650 has 34% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 90−95
+80.4%
|
50−55
−80.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+88.9%
|
35−40
−88.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+75.6%
|
40−45
−75.6%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 90−95
+80.4%
|
50−55
−80.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 151
+148%
|
61
−148%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+88.9%
|
35−40
−88.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+75.6%
|
40−45
−75.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+42%
|
69
−42%
|
| Fortnite | 150
−40.7%
|
211
+40.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 141
+56.7%
|
90
−56.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+55%
|
60
−55%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 153
+70%
|
90
−70%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
−47.5%
|
292
+47.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 90−95
+80.4%
|
50−55
−80.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 140
+164%
|
53
−164%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+88.9%
|
35−40
−88.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+19.5%
|
230−240
−19.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+75.6%
|
40−45
−75.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+41.2%
|
97
−41.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+47.6%
|
63
−47.6%
|
| Fortnite | 139
+63.5%
|
85
−63.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+61.4%
|
83
−61.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+72.2%
|
50−55
−72.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94
+16%
|
81
−16%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70
+100%
|
35
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 137
+59.3%
|
86
−59.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 124
+74.6%
|
71
−74.6%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
−31.3%
|
260
+31.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 131
+157%
|
51
−157%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+88.9%
|
35−40
−88.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+75.6%
|
40−45
−75.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+48.9%
|
92
−48.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+50.8%
|
59
−50.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 109
+67.7%
|
65
−67.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+127%
|
41
−127%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120
+81.8%
|
66
−81.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+80.5%
|
41
−80.5%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+183%
|
70
−183%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 108
+77%
|
61
−77%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+35%
|
20−22
−35%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+58.3%
|
130−140
−58.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+55%
|
40
−55%
|
| Metro Exodus | 42
+110%
|
20
−110%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1.7%
|
170−180
−1.7%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+32.2%
|
177
−32.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 99
+154%
|
39
−154%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+85%
|
40
−85%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 88
+91.3%
|
46
−91.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+62.9%
|
35−40
−62.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+83.9%
|
31
−83.9%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 74
+76.2%
|
42
−76.2%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+66.7%
|
14−16
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50
+51.5%
|
33
−51.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+125%
|
12
−125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+69.2%
|
26
−69.2%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+131%
|
83
−131%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+162%
|
21
−162%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+64.4%
|
59
−64.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+105%
|
19
−105%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 59
+96.7%
|
30
−96.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+94.1%
|
16−18
−94.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 44
+69.2%
|
26
−69.2%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 37
+236%
|
11
−236%
|
This is how RX Vega 56 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 56 is 67% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 56 is 88% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 56 is 100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 4K resolution and the Epic Preset, the RX Vega 56 is 236% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 47% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 56 is ahead in 64 tests (96%)
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 3 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 33.81 | 20.25 |
| Recency | 14 August 2017 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 75 Watt |
RX Vega 56 has a 67% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1650, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 180% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
