AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and AMD FirePro W600 occupy different ends of the hardware spectrum, separated by seven years of GPU evolution. The GTX 1650, a Turing-based consumer card from 2019, faces the FirePro W600, a GCN 1.0 workstation product from 2012. The database records only one shared benchmark between them, Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 1650 scores 29,629 against the FirePro W600's 6,223. That is a 376.1% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a gap so wide it defines the entire comparison. Yet the FirePro W600 was built for a specific purpose, multi-display professional output, and its 6x mini-DisplayPort configuration suggests a different kind of value than raw compute.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head result is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 produces 29,629 points while the FirePro W600 manages 6,223 points. The delta of 376.1% means the NVIDIA card delivers nearly five times the OpenCL compute performance. This is not a close contest; it is a generational chasm. The GTX 1650's FP32 throughput of 2.984 TFLOPS dwarfs the FirePro W600's 768.0 GFLOPS, a 3.9x difference in raw floating-point capability. The texture rate tells a similar story: 93.24 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s, a 3.9x gap. Pixel rate favors the GTX 1650 as well, 53.28 GPixel/s compared to 12.00 GPixel/s, a 4.4x margin.

Memory bandwidth reinforces the pattern. The GTX 1650 accesses 128.1 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with GDDR5 at 8 Gbps effective. The FirePro W600 uses the same 128-bit bus width but slower GDDR5 at 4 Gbps effective, yielding only 64.00 GB/s. That is exactly half the bandwidth. For any memory-bound workload, the NVIDIA card has a structural advantage that no driver optimization could close.

The FirePro W600's only recorded benchmark is that single OpenCL test. It has no entries for DirectX 9, 10, 11, or 12, no Passmark G2D or G3D scores, no Vulkan results. The GTX 1650, by contrast, has a full benchmark suite. Its Passmark G3D score is 7,880, its Passmark DirectX 9 score is 124, DirectX 10 is 39, DirectX 11 is 58, DirectX 12 is 35, and its GPU compute score is 3,048. The average benchmark score for the GTX 1650 is 7,472, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro W600 sits at the 36th percentile with an average score of 6,223.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 wins in every measurable compute and graphics category. It has more shading units (896 versus 512), more texture mapping units (56 versus 32), and more raster output units (32 versus 16). Its boost clock of 1665 MHz, with a base of 1485 MHz, provides the frequency headroom that the FirePro W600 lacks entirely, as that card reports no base or boost clock in the database. The GTX 1650 also supports modern API features: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the FirePro W600's DirectX 12 (11_1), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

The FirePro W600 does have one clear hardware advantage: display outputs. It offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 1650 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. For a workstation driving multiple monitors, the FirePro W600's six outputs are purpose-built. The GTX 1650 maxes out at three simultaneous displays. In a multi-screen financial trading desk or a video wall setup, the FirePro W600 would be the practical choice despite its compute deficit.

Physical dimensions favor the FirePro W600 for compact builds. It is 168 mm long (6.6 inches), 111 mm tall (4.4 inches), and 20 mm wide (0.8 inches), fitting in a single slot. The GTX 1650 is 229 mm long (9 inches), 111 mm tall (4.4 inches), and 35 mm wide (1.4 inches), requiring a dual-slot footprint. Both cards draw 75 W TDP and require no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The FirePro W600's smaller size and single-slot design could matter for dense server environments or small-form-factor chassis.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip on TSMC's 12 nm process, part of the Turing architecture. It integrates 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip on TSMC's 28 nm process, implementing GCN 1.0. It packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2M per mm². The process node difference, 12 nm versus 28 nm, explains much of the performance gap, as smaller transistors switch faster and draw less power per operation.

The Turing architecture in the GTX 1650 supports FP16 computation at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 5.967 TFLOPS. The FirePro W600 has no recorded FP16 capability. This makes the GTX 1650 more versatile for workloads that can use reduced precision, such as certain machine learning inference or image processing tasks. The GTX 1650's FP32 output of 2.984 TFLOPS versus the FirePro W600's 768.0 GFLOPS represents a 3.9x advantage in standard single-precision compute.

Memory architecture differs in capacity and speed. The GTX 1650 carries 4 GB of GDDR5, while the FirePro W600 has 2 GB. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the GTX 1650's memory clock of 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) doubles the FirePro W600's 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The resulting bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s means the GTX 1650 can feed its shading units more efficiently, reducing stalls in texture-heavy scenes.

The GTX 1650 belongs to the GeForce 16 generation, succeeding the GeForce 10 series and preceding GeForce 20. The FirePro W600 is part of the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation, succeeding FirePro Terascale and preceding Radeon Pro Polaris. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as those features are absent from the database for both products.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip, while the FirePro W600 uses Cape Verde. The GTX 1650 is built on 12 nm, the FirePro W600 on 28 nm. Transistor count is 4,700 million versus 1,500 million, die size is 200 mm² versus 123 mm², and transistor density is 23.5M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm².

Clock speeds: the GTX 1650 has a base of 1485 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz, while the FirePro W600 records no base or boost clock. Memory clocks are 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 4 GB versus 2 GB, though both use GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth is 128.1 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s.

Compute resources: the GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s, texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 2.984 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS. The GTX 1650 records FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1), while the FirePro W600 has no FP16 figure.

Physical specifications differ: the GTX 1650 is dual-slot, the FirePro W600 is single-slot. Length is 229 mm versus 168 mm, width is 35 mm versus 20 mm, while height is identical at 111 mm. Both have a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for both, but display outputs differ: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.

API support diverges: the GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. OpenGL 4.6 is common to both. The GTX 1650 was released on 2019-04-22, the FirePro W600 on 2012-06-12. The GTX 1650's launch MSRP is 149 USD, the FirePro W600's launch MSRP is 599 USD. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 1650 delivers 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 versus the FirePro W600's 768.0 GFLOPS, a 3.9x advantage. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 scores 29,629 against 6,223, a 376.1% difference.

Q: Can the FirePro W600 match the GTX 1650 in any benchmark?

A: The database records only one shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, where the FirePro W600 loses by 376.1%. The FirePro W600 has no other benchmark entries, so no other comparison is possible.

Q: Why would someone choose the FirePro W600 over the GTX 1650?

A: The FirePro W600 offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, enabling up to six displays from a single-slot card measuring 168 mm long. The GTX 1650 has three outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a) in a dual-slot, 229 mm design.

Q: How does memory capacity affect these cards?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 versus the FirePro W600's 2 GB. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the GTX 1650's bandwidth is 128.1 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, so it can handle larger textures and more data per frame.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked end-of-life in the database. The GTX 1650 was released on 2019-04-22, the FirePro W600 on 2012-06-12.

The Verdict

The data points overwhelmingly toward the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 for any compute-focused workload. Its 376.1% OpenCL lead, 3.9x FP32 advantage, and 2x memory bandwidth are not marginal differences; they represent a different performance class entirely. The GTX 1650 also has 4 GB of memory versus 2 GB, newer API support (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4), and a smaller process node (12 nm versus 28 nm). For gaming, general 3D rendering, or any GPU-accelerated task, the GTX 1650 is the only rational choice based on the recorded measurements.

The AMD FirePro W600 retains relevance only in a narrow niche: multi-display output. Its 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 configuration is unmatched by the GTX 1650's three outputs. For a system that must drive six monitors simultaneously, the FirePro W600's single-slot, 168 mm footprint and 75 W TDP make it a viable, if dated, option. The GTX 1650's dual-slot width and longer length could complicate tight chassis layouts.

The launch MSRP of 599 USD for the FirePro W600 versus 149 USD for the GTX 1650 further underscores the value shift, though both are end-of-life products. The percentile rankings tell the broader story: the GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, the FirePro W600 at the 36th. These are close in percentile terms, but the average benchmark scores, 7,472 versus 6,223, reveal the GTX 1650's superiority in the only test they share.

Buyers should match the hardware to the task. If the requirement is raw compute, modern API support, or gaming, the GTX 1650 wins on every recorded metric. If the requirement is a compact, single-slot card driving six displays for professional visualization, the FirePro W600's display output count is the deciding factor. The database shows no scenario where the FirePro W600 outperforms the GTX 1650 in compute, but its unique display configuration gives it a distinct, if limited, purpose.