GeForce GTX 1650 vs ATI Radeon X800
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 266 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 39.19 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 18.91 |
| Architecture | R400 (2004−2008) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | R430 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 October 2004 (20 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 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 | no data | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 160 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 110 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.800 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 12 | 32 |
| TMUs | 12 | 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 1.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 350 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 22.4 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0b (9_2) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 October 2004 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 110 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 75 Watt |
ATI X800 has 150% lower power consumption.
GTX 1650, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 14 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 816.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Radeon X800 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.
