GeForce GTX 1650 TU106 vs Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega 10TU106
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 October 2017 (7 years ago)18 June 2020 (5 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 cores4096896
Core clock speed1156 MHz1410 MHz
Boost clock speed1247 MHz1590 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt90 Watt
Texture fill rate319.289.04
Floating-point processing powerno data2.849 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs25656
Tensor Coresno data112
Ray Tracing Coresno data14

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length152 mm229 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pin1x 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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1600 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/s192.0 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI++

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12.012 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan-1.2
CUDA-7.5
DLSS-+

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 October 2017 18 June 2020
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 90 Watt

RX Vega 64 Nano has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1650 TU106, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 177.8% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano and GeForce GTX 1650 TU106. We've got no test results to judge.

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 RX Vega 64 Nano
Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 TU106
GeForce GTX 1650 TU106

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.


4.8 4 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 296 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 TU106 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano or GeForce GTX 1650 TU106, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.