Radeon PRO W7900 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 with Radeon PRO W7900, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7900 outperforms GTX 1650 by a whopping 268% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 281 | 15 |
| Place by popularity | 3 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 37.79 | 18.71 |
| Power efficiency | 18.74 | 17.52 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | Navi 31 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 13 April 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $3,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1650 has 102% better value for money than PRO W7900.
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 | 896 | 6144 |
| Core clock speed | 1485 MHz | 1855 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1665 MHz | 2495 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 57,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 295 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 93.24 | 958.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.984 TFLOPS | 61.32 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 192 |
| TMUs | 56 | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 96 |
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 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 280 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 8-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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 864.0 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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| 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.
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 | 69
−262%
| 250−260
+262%
|
| 1440p | 41
−266%
| 150−160
+266%
|
| 4K | 25
−260%
| 90−95
+260%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.16
+641%
| 16.00
−641%
|
| 1440p | 3.63
+634%
| 26.66
−634%
|
| 4K | 5.96
+646%
| 44.43
−646%
|
- GTX 1650 has 641% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1650 has 634% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1650 has 646% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
−253%
|
180−190
+253%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−261%
|
130−140
+261%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−266%
|
150−160
+266%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
−253%
|
180−190
+253%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 61
−261%
|
220−230
+261%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−261%
|
130−140
+261%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−266%
|
150−160
+266%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 69
−262%
|
250−260
+262%
|
| Fortnite | 211
−255%
|
750−800
+255%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90
−233%
|
300−310
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
−267%
|
220−230
+267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90
−233%
|
300−310
+233%
|
| Valorant | 292
−260%
|
1050−1100
+260%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
−253%
|
180−190
+253%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 53
−258%
|
190−200
+258%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−261%
|
130−140
+261%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
−246%
|
800−850
+246%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−266%
|
150−160
+266%
|
| Dota 2 | 97
−261%
|
350−400
+261%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 63
−265%
|
230−240
+265%
|
| Fortnite | 85
−253%
|
300−310
+253%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 83
−261%
|
300−310
+261%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−252%
|
190−200
+252%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 81
−258%
|
290−300
+258%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
−243%
|
120−130
+243%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 86
−249%
|
300−310
+249%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
−266%
|
260−270
+266%
|
| Valorant | 260
−265%
|
950−1000
+265%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 51
−253%
|
180−190
+253%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−261%
|
130−140
+261%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−266%
|
150−160
+266%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
−226%
|
300−310
+226%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
−256%
|
210−220
+256%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65
−254%
|
230−240
+254%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 41
−266%
|
150−160
+266%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 66
−264%
|
240−250
+264%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
−266%
|
150−160
+266%
|
| Valorant | 70
−257%
|
250−260
+257%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 61
−261%
|
220−230
+261%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−250%
|
70−75
+250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−260%
|
500−550
+260%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
−250%
|
140−150
+250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
−250%
|
70−75
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−249%
|
600−650
+249%
|
| Valorant | 177
−267%
|
650−700
+267%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 39
−259%
|
140−150
+259%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−261%
|
65−70
+261%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
−250%
|
140−150
+250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46
−248%
|
160−170
+248%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−243%
|
120−130
+243%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
−255%
|
110−120
+255%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 42
−257%
|
150−160
+257%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−267%
|
55−60
+267%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−233%
|
30−33
+233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
−264%
|
120−130
+264%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
−233%
|
40−45
+233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
−265%
|
95−100
+265%
|
| Valorant | 83
−261%
|
300−310
+261%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
−257%
|
75−80
+257%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−233%
|
30−33
+233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−238%
|
27−30
+238%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
−256%
|
210−220
+256%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
−242%
|
65−70
+242%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
−267%
|
110−120
+267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
−253%
|
60−65
+253%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
−265%
|
95−100
+265%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 11
−264%
|
40−45
+264%
|
This is how GTX 1650 and PRO W7900 compete in popular games:
- PRO W7900 is 262% faster in 1080p
- PRO W7900 is 266% faster in 1440p
- PRO W7900 is 260% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.50 | 75.39 |
| Recency | 23 April 2019 | 13 April 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 295 Watt |
GTX 1650 has 293.3% lower power consumption.
PRO W7900, on the other hand, has a 267.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO W7900 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop card while Radeon PRO W7900 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
