AMD FirePro W5170M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 advantage in the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 posts 29,629 points against 8,140 for the AMD FirePro W5170M, a delta of 72.5 percent in favor of NVIDIA. The Vulkan result is nearly identical in magnitude: the GTX 1650 scores 33,042, while the FirePro W5170M manages 9,050, putting NVIDIA ahead by 72.6 percent. These are not marginal gaps; they represent a roughly three-and-a-half-fold performance differential in both compute APIs.

The FirePro W5170M does not win either of the head-to-head tests. Its only benchmark entries in the database are the two Geekbench runs, both of which fall far short of the GTX 1650's numbers. The average benchmark score for the FirePro sits at 8,595, while the GTX 1650's average is 7,472, a counterintuitive outcome given the head-to-head results. This discrepancy arises because the GTX 1650's database entry includes many additional tests beyond Geekbench, including Passmark suites where its scores are modest. The Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests, however, are the only common measurements, and they uniformly favor the NVIDIA card.

When placed against the broader field, the FirePro W5170M's 44th percentile among all GPUs is slightly above the GTX 1650's 40th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A380 (average score 8,558, a 0.4 percent difference), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,686, 1.1 percent ahead of the FirePro), and the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, 1.6 percent behind). The GTX 1650's nearest rivals are lower-end parts: the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7,447, 0.3 percent behind), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441, 0.4 percent behind), and the Intel Arc A310 (7,550, 1 percent ahead). The overall percentile ranking suggests the FirePro sits in a slightly higher tier of aggregate performance, but the head-to-head data tells a different story for compute workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 is the clear winner in raw compute throughput. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 29,629 is 264 percent higher than the FirePro's 8,140. Its Vulkan score of 33,042 is 265 percent higher than the FirePro's 9,050. These are the only two tests where both GPUs appear, so the NVIDIA card wins every shared workload by a wide margin.

The FirePro W5170M's strengths lie elsewhere. Its average benchmark score of 8,595 exceeds the GTX 1650's 7,472, driven by the GTX 1650's weaker Passmark results. In Passmark DirectX 9, the GTX 1650 scores 124; in DirectX 10, it drops to 39; in DirectX 11, it posts 58; and in DirectX 12, it falls to 35. The GTX 1650's Passmark G3D score is 7,880, and its GPU compute score is 3,048. These numbers drag down its average, whereas the FirePro's two Geekbench scores are both above 8,000, keeping its average higher. The data indicates that the FirePro, despite losing the head-to-head compute tests, holds a better aggregate position relative to the full GPU landscape.

The GTX 1650 also shows a distinct advantage in memory bandwidth. Its 128.1 GB/s bandwidth more than doubles the FirePro's 72.00 GB/s. Its 4 GB memory capacity doubles the FirePro's 2 GB. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound or require larger working sets, the NVIDIA card is the clear choice.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD FirePro W5170M uses the Tropo chip based on GCN 1.0, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip based on Turing, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, a density of 23.5 million per mm². The GTX 1650's process node is more advanced, and its transistor density is nearly double that of the FirePro.

Core configurations differ substantially. The FirePro has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. NVIDIA's part has 40 percent more shaders, 40 percent more TMUs, and double the ROPs. Clock speeds also favor NVIDIA: the GTX 1650 runs at a base of 1,485 MHz and boosts to 1,665 MHz, while the FirePro operates at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. The combination of more cores and higher clocks yields enormous throughput differences. The GTX 1650's pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s for the FirePro, and its texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the GTX 1650 delivers 2.984 TFLOPS against 1,184.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro. The GTX 1650 also supports FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the FirePro has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory systems are similar in bus width, both using 128-bit interfaces with GDDR5, but the effective speeds differ. The FirePro's memory runs at 1,125 MHz with 4.5 Gbps effective, yielding 72.00 GB/s. The GTX 1650's memory runs at 2,001 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, yielding 128.1 GB/s. The NVIDIA card also has double the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB.

API support shows generational differences. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card's DirectX 12 feature level is higher, and its Vulkan version is newer. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both are listed as null in the database.

Form factors and interfaces also differ. The FirePro is an MXM module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The GTX 1650 is a dual-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, no power connectors, and a 75 W TDP. The GTX 1650 measures 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. Its display outputs include 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the FirePro's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice for compute-heavy workloads: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. Its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are roughly 3.6 times higher than the AMD FirePro W5170M's, and it offers double the memory capacity and nearly double the bandwidth. For anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan compute tasks, the GTX 1650 is the superior part by a wide margin.

The FirePro W5170M's case rests on its aggregate benchmark average and its form factor. Its average score of 8,595 places it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs, four points above the GTX 1650's 40th percentile. Its nearest rivals are higher-tier parts like the Quadro P2200 and Arc A380, whereas the GTX 1650 competes with integrated and low-end discrete GPUs. The FirePro also comes as an MXM module, which suits mobile workstations that require a replaceable GPU without a full-length PCIe card.

The GTX 1650 is the choice for performance. The FirePro is the choice for a specific mobile form factor with a slightly better aggregate standing. The head-to-head tests are not close, and the only scenario where the FirePro makes sense is one where the MXM interface is a requirement and the workload is not dominated by OpenCL or Vulkan compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 29,629 against 8,140 for the AMD FirePro W5170M, a 72.5 percent advantage.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 1650 has 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth, while the FirePro W5170M has 72.00 GB/s. The GTX 1650 also has 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The FirePro W5170M has an average benchmark score of 8,595, placing it in the 44th percentile. The GTX 1650 has an average of 7,472, placing it in the 40th percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each GPU?

A: The FirePro W5170M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro P2200, which is 1.1 percent ahead. The GTX 1650's nearest rival is the Intel Arc A310, which is 1 percent ahead.

Q: Does either GPU support ray tracing?

A: No. Both the FirePro W5170M and the GTX 1650 have no ray tracing cores or tensor cores listed in the database.

Q: What is the difference in shading units?

A: The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, while the FirePro W5170M has 640. The GTX 1650 also has 56 TMUs and 32 ROPs, versus 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs for the FirePro.