GeForce GTX 1650 vs ATI Radeon 9800 PRO

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon 9800 PRO and GeForce GTX 1650, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

ATI 9800 PRO
2003
128 MB DDR, 47 Watt
0.15

GTX 1650 outperforms ATI 9800 PRO by a whopping 13553% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1420271
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data38.38
Power efficiency0.2218.84
ArchitectureRage 8 (2002−2007)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameR350TU117
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 March 2003 (21 year ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

ATI 9800 PRO and GTX 1650 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 coresno data896
Core clock speed380 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1665 MHz
Number of transistors117 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology150 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)47 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate3.04093.24
Floating-point processing powerno data2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs856

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).

InterfaceAGP 8xPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x MolexNone

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 typeDDRGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount128 MB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed340 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth21.76 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0 (9_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGL2.04.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

ATI 9800 PRO 0.15
GTX 1650 20.48
+13553%

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.

ATI 9800 PRO 59
GTX 1650 7874
+13246%

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 HD0−169
1440p-0−140
4K-0−123

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.16
1440pno data3.73
4Kno data6.48

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Elden Ring 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 66
+0%
66
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
+0%
17
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 94
+0%
94
+0%
Metro Exodus 66
+0%
66
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 77
+0%
77
+0%
Valorant 85
+0%
85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75
+0%
75
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%
Dota 2 82
+0%
82
+0%
Elden Ring 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 90
+0%
90
+0%
Fortnite 82
+0%
82
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 74
+0%
74
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 75
+0%
75
+0%
Metro Exodus 44
+0%
44
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Valorant 46
+0%
46
+0%
World of Tanks 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55
+0%
55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12
+0%
Dota 2 92
+0%
92
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 62
+0%
62
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 61
+0%
61
+0%
Valorant 70
+0%
70
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Elden Ring 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 17
+0%
17
+0%
World of Tanks 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+0%
7
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45
+0%
45
+0%
Metro Exodus 41
+0%
41
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 40
+0%
40
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Dota 2 29
+0%
29
+0%
Elden Ring 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 29
+0%
29
+0%
Metro Exodus 12
+0%
12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+0%
29
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3
+0%
3
+0%
Dota 2 59
+0%
59
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 26
+0%
26
+0%
Valorant 21
+0%
21
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.15 20.48
Recency 1 March 2003 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 128 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 150 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 47 Watt 75 Watt

ATI 9800 PRO has 59.6% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 13553.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1150% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 9800 PRO in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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.


ATI Radeon 9800 PRO
Radeon 9800 PRO
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

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.


3.6 59 votes

Rate Radeon 9800 PRO on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 24282 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.