GeForce GTX 1650 vs ATI Radeon HD 4200
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 | 39.15 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 18.96 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | RS880 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 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.
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 | 40 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 181 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 2.000 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.04 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 4 | 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 | IGP | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.0 | 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 August 2009 | 23 April 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 12 nm |
GTX 1650 has an age advantage of 9 years, and a 358.3% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 4200 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.
