AMD FirePro W5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is substantially faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 43,875 versus 11,888 for the AMD FirePro W5100, a delta of 72.9% in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER dominates Vulkan workloads. It records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 50,519, while the FirePro W5100 manages 13,805. That represents a 72.7% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: Both cards have 4 GB of VRAM and a 128-bit memory bus. The FirePro W5100 uses GDDR5 memory at 6 Gbps effective for 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GTX 1650 SUPER uses GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective for 192.0 GB/s, exactly double the bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The FirePro W5100 has a TDP of 50 W, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU.

Q: Which card supports newer API features?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How does the GTX 1650 SUPER compare to its closest rivals?

A: The database shows the GTX 1650 SUPER's average benchmark score is 11,047. It sits within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075), 0.4% behind both NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (11,088 each), and 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883).

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The AMD FirePro W5100 is built on GCN 2.0 with the Bonaire chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 2,080 million transistors into a 160 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER uses the Turing architecture with the TU116 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process also at TSMC. It contains 6,600 million transistors across a 284 mm² die, for a density of 23.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip has more than three times the transistor count and nearly double the transistor density.

Compute resources differ sharply. The FirePro W5100 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 1650 SUPER scales this up to 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA card has roughly 67% more shading units, 67% more TMUs, and double the ROP count. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Clock behavior also separates the two. The FirePro W5100 has no listed base or boost clock in the database, while the GTX 1650 SUPER has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1725 MHz. Memory clocks are listed for both at 1500 MHz, but the effective data rate differs: 6 Gbps for the AMD card versus 12 Gbps for the NVIDIA card, which explains the bandwidth gap.

The memory subsystem uses different generations of GDDR. The FirePro W5100 uses GDDR5, while the GTX 1650 SUPER uses GDDR6. At equal bus widths of 128 bit, the faster memory on the NVIDIA card delivers 192.0 GB/s against 96.00 GB/s for the AMD card.

Form factor and power delivery reflect their intended markets. The FirePro W5100 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 50 W TDP. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a dual-slot card requiring a 6-pin connector and rated at 100 W. The suggested PSU is 250 W for the AMD card and 300 W for the NVIDIA card.

API support shows generational progress. The FirePro W5100 reaches DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both cards list OpenGL 4.6.

Physical dimensions are similar in height at 111 mm, but the NVIDIA card is longer at 229 mm versus 173 mm, and it is 35 mm wide. The AMD card has no listed width. Display outputs differ as well: the FirePro W5100 offers four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the GTX 1650 SUPER provides one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.4a.

Release timing separates the two by over five years. The FirePro W5100 launched in March 2014, while the GTX 1650 SUPER arrived in November 2019. Both are now end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparison points between these cards, both in compute-oriented workloads. The results are lopsided in favor of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 against the FirePro W5100's 11,888. The NVIDIA card leads by 72.9%. This is an enormous gap, roughly a 3.7x advantage in raw compute throughput. The OpenCL result aligns with the hardware specifications: the NVIDIA card has 1,280 shading units versus 768, higher clock speeds, and double the memory bandwidth. For OpenCL compute tasks that scale with shader count and memory throughput, the outcome is not surprising.

Geekbench Vulkan tells a similar story. The GTX 1650 SUPER records 50,519, while the FirePro W5100 posts 13,805. The delta is 72.7% in favor of NVIDIA. Vulkan performance depends on driver efficiency, API feature support, and raw hardware capability. The GTX 1650 SUPER's newer architecture, higher transistor count, and more advanced Vulkan implementation (1.4 versus 1.2.170) all contribute to the margin.

Across both recorded benchmarks, the NVIDIA card wins every test. The FirePro W5100 has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison, while the GTX 1650 SUPER takes both. The average benchmark score in the database reflects this: the GTX 1650 SUPER averages 11,047, while the FirePro W5100 averages 12,847. Note that these averages include different benchmark suites for each card, so the direct head-to-head results carry more weight for comparison purposes.

The FirePro W5100's percentile ranking among all GPUs is 52, slightly above the GTX 1650 SUPER's 50th percentile. This suggests that in the broader database population, the AMD card holds a marginally higher relative standing, even though it loses decisively in the two shared tests. The nearest rivals for each card reinforce this positioning: the FirePro W5100 trades blows with the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (0.1% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (0.1% ahead), AMD Radeon 740M (0.2% behind), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (0.6% ahead). The GTX 1650 SUPER sits within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 550, 0.4% behind both NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q, and 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX350.

The GTX 1650 SUPER's additional benchmark entries in the database, including PassMark tests for DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute, provide a broader performance profile. Its PassMark G3D score of 10,179 and GPU compute score of 4,477 give context for its gaming and compute capabilities, though no comparable FirePro W5100 scores exist for these tests.

The Verdict

The data makes the choice clear for compute performance. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior card in every shared benchmark. It leads by 72.9% in OpenCL and 72.7% in Vulkan. For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the NVIDIA card is the stronger option by a wide margin.

The FirePro W5100's strengths lie elsewhere. It draws only 50 W, needs no auxiliary power connector, and fits in a single slot. The GTX 1650 SUPER requires 100 W, a 6-pin connector, and a dual-slot cooler. For compact systems or low-power environments, the AMD card is the more practical fit. Its four DisplayPort outputs also suggest multi-monitor professional setups, though the GTX 1650 SUPER's single DisplayPort 1.4a, HDMI 2.0, and DVI combination covers standard display needs.

The GTX 1650 SUPER offers a launch MSRP of 159 USD. The FirePro W5100 has no listed launch MSRP in the database. Both products are end-of-life, so availability is limited to the used or clearance market.

The FirePro W5100's higher percentile rank (52 versus 50) does not translate into a performance advantage in the tests where both cards appear. That ranking reflects its placement among all GPUs in the database, not a head-to-head comparison with the GTX 1650 SUPER. When the two cards run the same workloads, the NVIDIA part wins decisively.

For buyers prioritizing compute throughput, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only reasonable choice from this comparison. For buyers prioritizing power efficiency, physical footprint, or multi-display output, the FirePro W5100 has merits that the benchmarks do not capture. The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the non-performance characteristics may tip the decision for specific use cases.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W5100 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Turing |

| Process node | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 2,080 million | 6,600 million |

| Die size | 160 mm² | 284 mm² |

| Transistor density | 13.0M / mm² | 23.2M / mm² |

| Base clock | Not listed | 1530 MHz |

| Boost clock | Not listed | 1725 MHz |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory clock | 6 Gbps effective | 12 Gbps effective |

| Memory bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 768 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 48 | 80 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel rate | 14.88 GPixel/s | 55.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 44.64 GTexel/s | 138.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,428.5 GFLOPS | 4.416 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 100 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

| Display outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Length | 173 mm | 229 mm |

| Width | Not listed | 35 mm |

| Release date | 2014-03-30 | 2019-11-21 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | GeForce 10 |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | GeForce 20 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 159 USD |

The two cards share a 4 GB memory capacity, 128-bit bus width, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, OpenGL 4.6 support, 111 mm height, and end-of-life production status. Everything else differs substantially, reflecting the five-year gap between their release dates and the architectural leap from GCN 2.0 to Turing.