GeForce GTX 1650 TU116 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 480 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | 29 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 41.96 | no data |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Vega | TU116 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (4 years ago) | 7 July 2020 (4 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 cores | 512 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1410 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2100 MHz | 1590 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 89.04 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.849 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 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 | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 7 July 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 80 Watt |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 71.4% more advanced lithography process, and 433.3% lower power consumption.
GTX 1650 TU116, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months.
We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce GTX 1650 TU116. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1650 TU116 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
