GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon PRO WX 2100

Place in the ranking	643	269
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.95	38.83
Power efficiency	9.36	18.68
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Lexa	TU117
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	4 June 2017 (7 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 has 883% better value for money than PRO WX 2100.

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	512	896
Core clock speed	925 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	1219 MHz	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	2,200 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	39.01	93.24
Floating-point processing power	1.248 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	32	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 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	168 mm	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	48 GB/s	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	1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	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.

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.

PRO WX 2100 4.78

GTX 1650 20.44
+328%

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.

PRO WX 2100 1841

GTX 1650 7874
+328%

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	16−18 −331%	69 +331%
1440p	9−10 −333%	39 +333%
4K	5−6 −340%	22 +340%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	9.31	2.16
1440p	16.56	3.82
4K	29.80	6.77

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9

−300%

30−35
+300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −308%	53 +308%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −840%	47 +840%
Battlefield 5	12−14 −558%	79 +558%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −420%	52 +420%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −300%	30−35 +300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −540%	64 +540%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −515%	80 +515%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −663%	229 +663%
Hitman 3	10−11 −390%	49 +390%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −842%	292 +842%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −818%	101 +818%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −492%	77 +492%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −576%	115 +576%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −398%	224 +398%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −538%	83 +538%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −600%	35 +600%
Battlefield 5	12−14 −500%	72 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −360%	46 +360%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −300%	30−35 +300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −420%	52 +420%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −331%	56 +331%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −570%	201 +570%
Hitman 3	10−11 −370%	47 +370%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −739%	260 +739%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −545%	71 +545%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −323%	55 +323%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −335%	74 +335%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −171%	45−50 +171%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −358%	206 +358%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −92.3%	25 +92.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 −160%	13 +160%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +25%	8 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −300%	30−35 +300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −290%	39 +290%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −117%	65 +117%
Hitman 3	10−11 −310%	41 +310%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 −93.5%	60 +93.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −265%	62 +265%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −147%	42 +147%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +114%	21 −114%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

−315%

54
+315%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 −367%	42 +367%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −414%	36 +414%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −350%	18 +350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −475%	21−24 +475%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −380%	24 +380%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −1256%	122 +1256%
Hitman 3	9−10 −200%	27 +200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −291%	43 +291%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −1950%	41 +1950%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −500%	24−27 +500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −383%	145 +383%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

−289%

35
+289%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −567%	20 +567%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −467%	17 +467%
Hitman 3	1−2 −1200%	13 +1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −720%	41 +720%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −2600%	27 +2600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −2500%	26 +2500%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −333%	13 +333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −150%	5 +150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −450%	10−12 +450%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	4−5
Far Cry 5	2−3 −500%	12 +500%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −650%	30 +650%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −700%	8 +700%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

−240%

17
+240%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13 +0%	13 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45 +0%	45 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

+0%

This is how PRO WX 2100 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 331% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 333% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 340% faster in 4K

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the PRO WX 2100 is 114% faster.
in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 2600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

PRO WX 2100 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
GTX 1650 is ahead in 66 tests (93%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (4%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.78	20.44
Recency	4 June 2017	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	75 Watt

PRO WX 2100 has 114.3% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 327.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.

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