Trace: try redirect_from
Trace: select _id, title from ss_cards where redirect_to=2679
GeForce GTX 1650 vs ATI Radeon X1650 PRO AGP
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 257 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 2 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 40.71 |
| Architecture | R500 (2005−2007) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | RV535 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 October 2006 (17 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.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | no data | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 330 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 44 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 2.400 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 2.984 gflops |
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 | AGP 8x | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x Molex | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1400 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 22.4 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 15 October 2006 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 44 Watt | 75 Watt |
ATI X1650 PRO AGP has 70.5% lower power consumption.
GTX 1650, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 12 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Radeon X1650 PRO AGP and GeForce GTX 1650. We've got no test results to judge.
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.
