GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs Radeon PRO WX 2100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

PRO WX 2100
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
4.78

GTX 1650 Max-Q outperforms PRO WX 2100 by a whopping 236% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking643336
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.96no data
Power efficiency9.3636.64
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameLexaTU117
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date4 June 2017 (7 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

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 cores5121024
Core clock speed925 MHz930 MHz
Boost clock speed1219 MHz1125 MHz
Number of transistors2,200 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate39.0172.00
Floating-point processing power1.248 TFLOPS2.304 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs3264

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth48 GB/s112.1 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 Connectors1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs

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.

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.140
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 Max-Q 16.04
+236%

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 Max-Q 6181
+236%

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 HD16−18
−256%
57
+256%
1440p8−9
−275%
30
+275%
4K4−5
−275%
15
+275%

Cost per frame, $

1080p9.31no data
1440p18.63no data
4K37.25no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−213%
24−27
+213%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−277%
49
+277%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−420%
24−27
+420%
Battlefield 5 12−14
−425%
63
+425%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
−320%
42
+320%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−213%
24−27
+213%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−380%
48
+380%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−354%
59
+354%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
−550%
195
+550%
Hitman 3 10−11
−210%
30−35
+210%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−158%
80−85
+158%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−545%
71
+545%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−315%
54
+315%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−206%
50−55
+206%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−80%
80−85
+80%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−431%
69
+431%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−420%
24−27
+420%
Battlefield 5 12−14
−358%
55
+358%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
−300%
40
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−213%
24−27
+213%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−280%
38
+280%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−215%
41
+215%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
−497%
179
+497%
Hitman 3 10−11
−210%
30−35
+210%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−158%
80−85
+158%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−427%
58
+427%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−246%
45
+246%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−206%
50−55
+206%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−124%
35−40
+124%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−80%
80−85
+80%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−53.8%
20
+53.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−420%
24−27
+420%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
−150%
25
+150%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−213%
24−27
+213%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−160%
26
+160%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
−83.3%
55
+83.3%
Hitman 3 10−11
−210%
30−35
+210%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−158%
80−85
+158%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−206%
50−55
+206%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−76.5%
30
+76.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−80%
80−85
+80%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−223%
42
+223%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
−267%
33
+267%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−271%
26
+271%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−325%
17
+325%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−325%
16−18
+325%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−280%
19
+280%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−1278%
124
+1278%
Hitman 3 9−10
−111%
18−20
+111%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−200%
30−35
+200%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1500%
32
+1500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−325%
16−18
+325%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−227%
95−100
+227%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−189%
24−27
+189%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−267%
11
+267%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−333%
13
+333%
Hitman 3 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−1520%
80−85
+1520%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−2100%
22
+2100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−1700%
18
+1700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−167%
8
+167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 3−4
Far Cry 5 2−3
−350%
9
+350%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−450%
21−24
+450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−160%
13
+160%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

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

  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 256% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 275% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 275% faster in 4K

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

  • in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 Max-Q is 2100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is ahead in 68 tests (96%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (4%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.78 16.04
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 30 Watt

GTX 1650 Max-Q has a 235.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 16.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q 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 card while GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is a notebook one.


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.


AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100
Radeon PRO WX 2100
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

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.


3.6 50 votes

Rate Radeon PRO WX 2100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 620 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q 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.