GeForce GTX 1650 vs Radeon RX Vega M GL

Place in the ranking	451	272
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	37.78
Power efficiency	10.69	18.80
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Polaris 22	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	1 February 2018 (6 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 cores	1280	896
Core clock speed	931 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	1011 MHz	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	80.88	93.24
Floating-point processing power	2.588 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	80	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	IGP	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	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	HBM2	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	1024 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	179.2 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	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	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.

RX Vega M GL 10.09

GTX 1650 20.48
+103%

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.

RX Vega M GL 3878

GTX 1650 7875
+103%

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	30−35 −130%	69 +130%
1440p	18−20 −122%	40 +122%
4K	10−12 −130%	23 +130%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.16
1440p	no data	3.73
4K	no data	6.48

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Fortnite	55−60 −86.4%	110−120 +86.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 −92.3%	150−160 +92.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Dota 2	35−40 −128%	82 +128%
Fortnite	55−60 −39%	82 +39%
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40 −108%	75 +108%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 −75.6%	130−140 +75.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−33 −117%	65−70 +117%
World of Tanks	140−150 −62.1%	230−240 +62.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Dota 2	35−40 −156%	92 +156%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 +27.9%	61 −27.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−33 −100%	60−65 +100%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite

55−60
−86.4%

110−120

+86.4%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V	20−22 −45%	29 +45%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 −45%	29 +45%

4K
Ultra Preset

Dota 2	20−22 −195%	59 +195%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 −89.7%	55−60 +89.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

10−12

−90.9%

21−24
+90.9%

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Elden Ring	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	66 +0%	66 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	17 +0%	17 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	94 +0%	94 +0%
Metro Exodus	66 +0%	66 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	77 +0%	77 +0%
Valorant	85 +0%	85 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	75 +0%	75 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 +0%	14 +0%
Elden Ring	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Far Cry 5	90 +0%	90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	74 +0%	74 +0%
Metro Exodus	44 +0%	44 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	28 +0%	28 +0%
Valorant	46 +0%	46 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55 +0%	55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 +0%	12 +0%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	62 +0%	62 +0%
Valorant	70 +0%	70 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Elden Ring	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	17 +0%	17 +0%
World of Tanks	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	38 +0%	38 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 +0%	7 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45 +0%	45 +0%
Metro Exodus	41 +0%	41 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Valorant	40 +0%	40 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Dota 2	29 +0%	29 +0%
Elden Ring	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Metro Exodus	12 +0%	12 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18 +0%	18 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3 +0%	3 +0%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Fortnite	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	26 +0%	26 +0%
Valorant	21 +0%	21 +0%

This is how RX Vega M GL and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 130% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 122% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 130% faster in 4K

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega M GL is 28% faster.
in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 is 195% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega M GL is ahead in 1 test (2%)
GTX 1650 is ahead in 10 tests (16%)
there's a draw in 52 tests (83%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.09	20.48
Recency	1 February 2018	23 April 2019
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	75 Watt

RX Vega M GL has 15.4% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 103% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega M GL in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GL is a notebook 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.