AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a decisive, one-sided performance gap between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and the AMD Radeon Pro 450. Across the two directly comparable benchmark tests, the NVIDIA card wins both, and the margins are staggering. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 points, while the Radeon Pro 450 manages only 9,002 points. This translates to a deltaPct of 387.4%, meaning the NVIDIA part is nearly five times faster in this compute-oriented workload. The results are similarly lopsided in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the NVIDIA card scores 50,519 points against the AMD card's 10,518 points, a deltaPct of 380.3%. In both scenarios, the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers a performance advantage that is not merely incremental but transformative for any application relying on these APIs.

The average benchmark score reinforces this narrative. The GTX 1650 SUPER holds an average score of 11,047 across its full benchmark suite, while the Radeon Pro 450 averages 10,804. While the absolute difference in average score is modest—only about 2.2%—this figure is heavily skewed by the limited number of tests run on the AMD card. The Radeon Pro 450 has only three recorded benchmarks: Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan. Its Metal score of 12,893 is its strongest showing, but the OpenCL and Vulkan scores are dramatically lower, pulling the average down. The GTX 1650 SUPER, by contrast, has a much broader benchmark footprint, including PassMark tests across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, as well as 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its lowest score in any of these tests is 45 in PassMark DirectX 12, but its higher scores in compute (4,477 in PassMark GPU Compute) and G3D (10,179) bolster the overall average.

When placed against their respective nearest rivals, both cards sit in a similar performance tier, but the context differs. The GTX 1650 SUPER's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 550, which has an average score of 11,075, a deltaPct of -0.2% relative to the NVIDIA card. This indicates the GTX 1650 SUPER is effectively tied with the RX 550 in average performance. The Radeon Pro 450's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K2200, with an average score of 10,761, a deltaPct of 0.4% in favor of the AMD card. Both cards are therefore operating in a similar performance neighborhood when aggregated, yet the head-to-head tests reveal the GTX 1650 SUPER's overwhelming advantage in compute and Vulkan workloads—areas where the Radeon Pro 450 is clearly outclassed.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the choice is unambiguous for raw performance. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins every head-to-head benchmark against the AMD Radeon Pro 450, and it does so by margins exceeding 380% in both OpenCL and Vulkan tests. The percentile ranking confirms the gap: the GTX 1650 SUPER sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 450 sits just below at the 49th percentile. This percentile difference is small, but the head-to-head scores tell a more granular story. The GTX 1650 SUPER is the card to select for any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan, as its compute throughput is in a completely different class. The Radeon Pro 450, with its 35 W TDP and MXM module form factor, is clearly designed for low-power, portable systems, but the benchmark data shows it cannot compete on raw compute muscle.

For whom, then, is the Radeon Pro 450 the right choice? The data suggests a narrow use case. Its only competitive benchmark is Geekbench Metal, where it scores 12,893. The GTX 1650 SUPER has no Metal benchmark recorded, so a direct comparison in that API is impossible from the data. If a user is strictly bound to Metal-based applications on a macOS platform, the Radeon Pro 450 may be the only option that works, despite its lower raw scores elsewhere. However, for anyone using Windows or Linux with OpenCL or Vulkan applications, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior pick by a wide margin. The verdict is not close: the NVIDIA card wins on performance, and the AMD card wins only in the absence of a direct benchmark comparison.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational and fundamental. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It uses the TU116 chip, which contains 6,600 million transistors on a die size of 284 mm², yielding a transistor density of 23.2 million per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro 450, in contrast, uses the GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its Baffin chip houses 3,000 million transistors on a much smaller die of 123 mm², resulting in a higher transistor density of 24.4 million per mm². Despite the smaller process node advantage for AMD, the NVIDIA chip's larger transistor budget enables significantly more compute resources.

The compute unit counts reflect this disparity. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 450 has exactly half the shading units (640), half the TMUs (40), and half the ROPs (16). This doubling of resources in the NVIDIA card is the primary driver of its performance advantage. Neither card includes ray tracing or tensor cores, as both lack those dedicated hardware units. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon Pro 450 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The difference in DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 12_0) and Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.3) indicates the NVIDIA card supports more advanced rendering features.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets show a wide gulf in nearly every measurable category. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1725 MHz, whereas the Radeon Pro 450 has no base or boost clock listed, making direct clock-speed comparison impossible. Memory configurations differ substantially: the NVIDIA card features 4 GB of GDDR6 memory running at 12 Gbps effective, delivering a bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The AMD card has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory at 5.1 Gbps effective, yielding a bandwidth of 81.28 GB/s over the same 128-bit bus. The GTX 1650 SUPER therefore has twice the memory capacity and more than double the bandwidth.

Compute throughput is where the gap becomes cavernous. The GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 4.416 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Radeon Pro 450 manages only 1,024.0 GFLOPS—a four-fold difference. In FP16, the NVIDIA card achieves 8.832 TFLOPS (with a 2:1 ratio), while the AMD card is locked at 1,024.0 GFLOPS (with a 1:1 ratio), meaning it has no FP16 acceleration advantage. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: the GTX 1650 SUPER hits 55.20 GPixel/s and 138.0 GTexel/s, versus 12.80 GPixel/s and 32.00 GTexel/s for the Radeon Pro 450. Power consumption is also divergent, with the NVIDIA card rated at 100 W TDP and requiring a 6-pin power connector plus a 300 W suggested PSU, while the AMD card draws only 35 W and uses an MXM module form factor with no external power connector. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm in length, while the Radeon Pro 450 is a portable-device-dependent MXM module with no listed dimensions.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11,047, while the AMD Radeon Pro 450 averages 10,804, a difference of 243 points.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 SUPER in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 387.4% higher than the Radeon Pro 450's score of 9,002.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 450 have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmarks, the GTX 1650 SUPER wins both tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan). The Radeon Pro 450 has a Geekbench Metal score of 12,893, but the GTX 1650 SUPER has no Metal benchmark recorded for comparison.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the Radeon Pro 450 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. Both use a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The NVIDIA GTX 1650 SUPER has 6,600 million transistors, more than double the 3,000 million transistors in the AMD Radeon Pro 450.

Q: What are the DirectX support levels for each card?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Radeon Pro 450 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.3 on the AMD card.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins in every scenario where raw compute throughput is the deciding factor. The 387.4% lead in OpenCL and the 380.3% lead in Vulkan make it the clear choice for OpenCL-based compute tasks, Vulkan gaming, or any workload utilizing those APIs. Its 4.416 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 8.832 TFLOPS of FP16 performance provide a substantial foundation for parallel processing. The doubled memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB) and nearly 2.4 times the bandwidth (192.0 GB/s vs 81.28 GB/s) also make it more suitable for texture-heavy workloads or larger datasets. The card's higher pixel rate (55.20 GPixel/s) and texture rate (138.0 GTexel/s) further cement its advantage in rasterization-heavy applications.

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 wins only in scenarios where its specific attributes are required. Its 35 W TDP and MXM module form factor make it the only viable option for ultra-low-power or portable systems that cannot accommodate the GTX 1650 SUPER's 100 W TDP, dual-slot design, and 229 mm length. For users restricted to Apple's Metal API, the Radeon Pro 450's Geekbench Metal score of 12,893 is the only data point available, as the NVIDIA card has no Metal benchmark. The AMD card also supports Vulkan 1.3, which is a slightly older version than the NVIDIA card's Vulkan 1.4, but still functional. In terms of pure performance, however, the data shows no scenario where the Radeon Pro 450 outperforms the GTX 1650 SUPER. The NVIDIA card wins on compute, memory, and feature support, making it the superior choice for any application not constrained by power or form factor limitations.