GeForce GTX 1650 vs ATI Radeon HD 4200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 4200 and GeForce GTX 1650, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

ATI HD 4200
2009
0.29

GTX 1650 outperforms ATI HD 4200 by a whopping 6945% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1338269
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data38.84
Power efficiencyno data18.67
ArchitectureTeraScale (2005−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameRS880TU117
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 August 2009 (15 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.

no data

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 cores40896
Core clock speed500 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1665 MHz
Number of transistors181 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data75 Watt
Texture fill rate2.00093.24
Floating-point processing power0.04 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs456

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX10.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.01.2
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 HD 4200 0.29
GTX 1650 20.43
+6945%

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 HD 4200 111
GTX 1650 7874
+6994%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

ATI HD 4200 236
GTX 1650 44694
+18838%

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
1440p0−139
4K-0−122

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.16
1440pno data3.82
4Kno data6.77

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1500%
30−35
+1500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1667%
53
+1667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−2500%
52
+2500%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1500%
30−35
+1500%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1125%
49
+1125%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−3550%
292
+3550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−2775%
115
+2775%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−700%
224
+700%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−2667%
83
+2667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−2200%
46
+2200%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1500%
30−35
+1500%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1075%
47
+1075%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−3150%
260
+3150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−1750%
74
+1750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−411%
45−50
+411%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−636%
206
+636%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−733%
25
+733%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−300%
8
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1500%
30−35
+1500%
Hitman 3 4−5
−925%
41
+925%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−650%
60
+650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−1450%
62
+1450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−367%
42
+367%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+33.3%
21
−33.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 12−14
Hitman 3 6−7
−350%
27
+350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−2050%
43
+2050%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1650%
35
+1650%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−1200%
13
+1200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 5

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−750%
17
+750%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 47
+0%
47
+0%
Battlefield 5 79
+0%
79
+0%
Far Cry 5 64
+0%
64
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 80
+0%
80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 229
+0%
229
+0%
Metro Exodus 101
+0%
101
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 77
+0%
77
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35
+0%
35
+0%
Battlefield 5 72
+0%
72
+0%
Far Cry 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 56
+0%
56
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 201
+0%
201
+0%
Metro Exodus 71
+0%
71
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55
+0%
55
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Far Cry 5 39
+0%
39
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65
+0%
65
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 54
+0%
54
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 42
+0%
42
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 36
+0%
36
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18
+0%
18
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 122
+0%
122
+0%
Metro Exodus 41
+0%
41
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45
+0%
45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 145
+0%
145
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 20
+0%
20
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 17
+0%
17
+0%
Hitman 3 13
+0%
13
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 41
+0%
41
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+0%
26
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+0%
30
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 26
+0%
26
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8
+0%
8
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI HD 4200 is 33% faster.
  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 3550% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • ATI HD 4200 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • GTX 1650 is ahead in 28 tests (40%)
  • there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.29 20.43
Recency 1 August 2009 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 55 nm 12 nm

GTX 1650 has a 6944.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 358.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4200 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 HD 4200
Radeon HD 4200
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.3 263 votes

Rate Radeon HD 4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 23772 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.