GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs Radeon Pro WX 8200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Radeon Instinct MI25 Radeon Pro V320 Radeon Pro WX 8200 Radeon PRO WX 9100 Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GTX 1650 GDDR6 GTX 1650 SUPER GTX 1650 TU106 GTX 1650 TU116

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro WX 8200 with GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER, including specs and performance data.

Pro WX 8200
2018
8 GB HBM2, 230 Watt
34.39
+30.1%

Pro WX 8200 outperforms GTX 1650 SUPER by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Pro WX 8200 Pro WX 8200
GTX 1650 SUPER GTX 1650 SUPER

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking150210
Place by popularitynot in top-10057
Cost-effectiveness evaluation25.06no data
Power efficiency10.3218.24
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega 10TU116
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date13 August 2018 (6 years ago)22 November 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999 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 cores35841280
Core clock speed1200 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speed1500 MHz1725 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)230 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate336.0138.0
Floating-point processing power10.75 TFLOPS4.416 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs22480

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 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mm229 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin1x 6-pin

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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz12000 MHz
Memory bandwidth512.0 GB/s192.0 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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPort1x 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.

VR Readyno data+
Multi Monitorno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.1.1251.2.131
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 8200 34.39
+30.1%
GTX 1650 SUPER 26.44

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 8200 13224
+30.1%
GTX 1650 SUPER 10166

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 HD90−95
+28.6%
70
−28.6%
1440p45−50
+25%
36
−25%
4K27−30
+17.4%
23
−17.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p11.10no data
1440p22.20no data
4K37.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 61
+0%
61
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 63
+0%
63
+0%
Elden Ring 76
+0%
76
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 48
+0%
48
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 47
+0%
47
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 121
+0%
121
+0%
Metro Exodus 89
+0%
89
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 84
+0%
84
+0%
Valorant 115
+0%
115
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 39
+0%
39
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 38
+0%
38
+0%
Dota 2 138
+0%
138
+0%
Elden Ring 82
+0%
82
+0%
Far Cry 5 151
+0%
151
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 101
+0%
101
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 103
+0%
103
+0%
Metro Exodus 61
+0%
61
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30
+0%
30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
World of Tanks 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35
+0%
35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 32
+0%
32
+0%
Dota 2 191
+0%
191
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 83
+0%
83
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 45
+0%
45
+0%
Elden Ring 31
+0%
31
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+0%
45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
World of Tanks 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 20
+0%
20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+0%
19
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60
+0%
60
+0%
Metro Exodus 55
+0%
55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10
+0%
10
+0%
Dota 2 45
+0%
45
+0%
Elden Ring 17
+0%
17
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45
+0%
45
+0%
Metro Exodus 16
+0%
16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45
+0%
45
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+0%
5
+0%
Dota 2 80
+0%
80
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+0%
30
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

This is how Pro WX 8200 and GTX 1650 SUPER compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 8200 is 29% faster in 1080p
  • Pro WX 8200 is 25% faster in 1440p
  • Pro WX 8200 is 17% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 34.39 26.44
Recency 13 August 2018 22 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 230 Watt 100 Watt

Pro WX 8200 has a 30.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1650 SUPER, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 130% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro WX 8200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 8200 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is a desktop 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 8200
Radeon Pro WX 8200
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Pro WX 8200 Radeon Pro WX 8200
vs
Vega Frontier Edition Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
GTX 1650 SUPER GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
vs
GTX 1060 6 GB GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB
Pro WX 8200 Radeon Pro WX 8200
vs
Pro VII Radeon Pro VII
UHD Graphics 615 UHD Graphics 615
vs
Apple M4 20-core GPU M4 20 core GPU
Pro 555X Radeon Pro 555X
vs
R5 M445 Radeon R5 M445
Vega 3 Efficient Radeon Vega 3 Efficient
vs
GeForce MX250 GeForce MX250
ATI DDR MAXX Radeon DDR MAXX
vs
Instinct MI210 Radeon Instinct MI210
ATI X1600 XT Dual Radeon X1600 XT Dual
vs
RTX A2000 Mobile RTX A2000 Mobile
RTX 2080 Ti GeForce RTX 2080 Ti
vs
QID
RTX 2060 GeForce RTX 2060
vs
T400 Mobile T400 Mobile
RTX 2060 GeForce RTX 2060
vs
CMP 170HX CMP 170HX
RTX 2060 GeForce RTX 2060
vs
A800 PCIe 40 GB A800 PCIe 40 GB
R5 M465 Radeon R5 M465
vs
GTX 1650 GeForce GTX 1650

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.1 27 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 8200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 4821 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER 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.