AMD FirePro W5000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

The data places the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and the AMD FirePro W5000 in different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark results reflect that gap starkly. The GTX 1650 SUPER, a Turing-based card from 2019, is compared against a GCN 1.0 professional card from 2012. While both are end-of-life products, the performance delta is not subtle, and the specifications tell a story of architectural progress that spans seven years.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a decisive victory for the NVIDIA card. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 points, while the FirePro W5000 manages only 9,803 points. That is a delta of 347.6% in favor of the NVIDIA card. In practical terms, the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers over four times the OpenCL compute performance of the FirePro W5000. This is not a close contest; it is a generational wipeout.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the GTX 1650 SUPER’s average benchmark score of 11,047 places it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 550 with an average score of 11,075 (just 0.2% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 at 10,883 (1.5% lower). This means the GTX 1650 SUPER sits in a crowded mid-range performance tier, essentially trading blows with entry-level cards from the same era. The FirePro W5000, by contrast, has an average score of 9,803, placing it at the 47th percentile. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M at 9,832 (0.3% higher), showing it is competitive with mobile workstation parts from roughly its own time.

The individual benchmark results for the GTX 1650 SUPER show a well-rounded performer. In PassMark tests, it scores 10,179 in G3D (the main graphics metric), 4,477 in GPU compute, and 749 in G2D. Legacy DirectX tests show scores of 148 in DirectX 9, 73 in DirectX 11, 50 in DirectX 10, and 45 in DirectX 12. The card also posts 50,519 in Geekbench Vulkan and 352 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The FirePro W5000 has no comparable data for these tests, so the OpenCL result is the only direct apples-to-apples comparison available.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is unambiguous for anyone prioritizing raw performance. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the faster card by an enormous margin in the one test they share. The 347.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is not a small edge; it is a fundamental difference in compute capability. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has a higher average benchmark score (11,047 vs 9,803) and a higher percentile ranking (50th vs 47th).

The AMD FirePro W5000’s only advantages are physical and power-related. It is a single-slot card drawing 75 W with no power connectors, while the GTX 1650 SUPER is dual-slot with a 100 W TDP and a 6-pin connector. The FirePro W5000 is also shorter at 183 mm versus 229 mm for the NVIDIA card. If a system has strict space and power constraints, the FirePro W5000 could be the only option that fits, but the performance sacrifice is extreme.

For a user choosing between these two specifically, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the pick for any workload involving OpenCL compute, which includes many rendering and productivity tasks. The FirePro W5000 makes sense only in a legacy system where its single-slot, low-power profile is a hard requirement and the workload is minimal. The data does not support any other conclusion.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 versus the AMD FirePro W5000’s 9,803, a 347.6% lead for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11,047, while the FirePro W5000 averages 9,803. This puts the NVIDIA card at the 50th percentile of all GPUs and the AMD card at the 47th.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s, compared to 102.4 GB/s for the FirePro W5000. The NVIDIA card also has more memory (4 GB vs 2 GB) and uses GDDR6 instead of GDDR5.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W and requires a 300 W power supply, plus a 6-pin connector. The FirePro W5000 has a TDP of 75 W, needs no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card is physically larger?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER is 229 mm long and dual-slot, while the FirePro W5000 is 183 mm long and single-slot. Both are 111 mm in height.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro W5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a lower feature level.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, packing 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die. The AMD FirePro W5000 uses a larger 28 nm process, with 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die. This gives the NVIDIA card a transistor density of 23.2M per mm² versus 13.2M per mm² for AMD.

Clock speeds are also different. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1725 MHz, while the FirePro W5000 lists no base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA and 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) for AMD. The memory subsystem favors NVIDIA: 4 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus versus 2 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the GTX 1650 SUPER achieves higher bandwidth at 192.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

Compute resources differ significantly. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro W5000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rates are 55.20 GPixel/s versus 26.40 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 138.0 GTexel/s versus 39.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 4.416 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 1,267.2 GFLOPS for AMD. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has FP16 capability at 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the FirePro W5000 has no FP16 data.

Physical and power specs differ as well. The GTX 1650 SUPER is dual-slot with a 100 W TDP, a 6-pin connector, and a suggested 300 W PSU. The FirePro W5000 is single-slot with a 75 W TDP, no connectors, and a 250 W PSU. Display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a for NVIDIA; AMD offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is foundational. The NVIDIA card uses the Turing architecture (chip TU116), which is a modern design with support for DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card uses GCN 1.0 (chip Pitcairn), which is an older architecture that supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The difference in DirectX feature level is notable: 12_1 includes features like conservative rasterization and rasterizer ordered views, which are absent in 11_1.

The GTX 1650 SUPER has no ray tracing or tensor cores, as it is a mainstream Turing part without those specialized units. The FirePro W5000 also lacks these, so neither card offers hardware ray tracing. The NVIDIA card’s FP16 support at a 2:1 ratio gives it a compute advantage for workloads that can use mixed precision, a feature the AMD card does not have.

Manufacturing technology is a major differentiator. The 12 nm node used by TSMC for Turing is denser and more power-efficient than the 28 nm node used for GCN 1.0. This explains how the GTX 1650 SUPER achieves far higher transistor counts, clock speeds, and performance within a TDP envelope that is only 25 W higher than the FirePro W5000. The NVIDIA card also has a newer memory type (GDDR6 vs GDDR5), which contributes to its bandwidth advantage despite a narrower bus.

In terms of product lifecycle, the GTX 1650 SUPER was released in November 2019 and is part of the GeForce 16 generation, succeeding the GeForce 10 series and preceding GeForce 20. The FirePro W5000 was released in August 2012, succeeding FirePro Terascale and preceding Radeon Pro Polaris. Both are end-of-life products, but the NVIDIA card is seven years newer.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins in every performance category where data exists. It is 347.6% faster in Geekbench OpenCL. It has a higher average benchmark score (11,047 vs 9,803). It has higher pixel rate (55.20 vs 26.40 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (138.0 vs 39.60 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 compute (4.416 TFLOPS vs 1,267.2 GFLOPS). It has more memory, higher bandwidth, and a newer API feature set. For any workload that touches compute, graphics rendering, or modern API calls, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the definitive winner.

The AMD FirePro W5000 wins only in physical and power efficiency. It is a single-slot card, while the NVIDIA card is dual-slot. It draws 75 W versus 100 W, and it requires no external power connector. It is shorter at 183 mm versus 229 mm. It also has a lower suggested PSU requirement (250 W vs 300 W). For a builder with a cramped chassis, a weak power supply, or a strict single-slot constraint, the FirePro W5000 is the only card that fits. That is its niche.

There is no benchmark where the FirePro W5000 beats the GTX 1650 SUPER. The data shows a clear split: the NVIDIA card dominates on performance, while the AMD card dominates on physical footprint and power draw. The choice comes down to whether the system can accommodate the GTX 1650 SUPER’s larger size and higher power draw. If it can, there is no reason to pick the FirePro W5000 based on this data.