AMD Radeon Pro 455 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER dominates the AMD Radeon Pro 455 in every direct benchmark comparison. In the two head-to-head tests available, the GTX 1650 SUPER wins both, leaving the Radeon Pro 455 without a single victory. The margin is substantial in both compute and graphics workloads.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 against the Radeon Pro 455's 10,336. That is a delta of -76.4% from the perspective of the AMD part, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers more than four times the raw compute performance in this API. The OpenCL result reflects general-purpose GPU compute, and the gap here is so large that no workload running through this API would be competitive on the AMD side.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story. The GTX 1650 SUPER reaches 50,519, while the Radeon Pro 455 manages 12,240. The delta is -75.8%, again a decisive NVIDIA victory. Vulkan is a modern low-level graphics and compute API, and the NVIDIA card's advantage here is nearly as large as in OpenCL. This suggests the performance gap is not limited to one type of workload but extends across both compute-oriented and graphics-oriented APIs.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the picture remains consistent. The GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11,047 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Radeon Pro 455 has an average score of 12,831, which places it in the 52nd percentile. Interestingly, the AMD card's average is higher than the NVIDIA card's average, but this is because the average includes a wider set of tests and the two direct head-to-head comparisons are not the only data points. The direct comparisons, however, are the most reliable indicator of relative performance between these two specific products, and they show a clear NVIDIA advantage.

The nearest rivals for each card further contextualize their standing. The Radeon Pro 455 sits alongside the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (average score 12,830, delta 0%), the AMD FirePro W5100 (12,847, -0.1%), the AMD Radeon 740M (12,870, -0.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (12,773, +0.5%). These are all older or lower-tier parts, and the Radeon Pro 455 is effectively in the same performance class as a GTX 590 or GTX 670. The GTX 1650 SUPER, by contrast, is bracketed by the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075, -0.2%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (11,088, -0.4%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (11,088, -0.4%), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883, +1.5%). The GTX 1650 SUPER's average sits in a similar range, but its direct head-to-head scores against the Radeon Pro 455 are far higher than the average suggests, driven by the specific tests recorded.

The delta percentages in the head-to-head tests are the key figures. A -76.4% delta in OpenCL and a -75.8% delta in Vulkan mean the Radeon Pro 455 is operating at roughly one-quarter of the NVIDIA card's performance in these APIs. No amount of driver optimization or workload tuning can close a gap of that size; it is a fundamental hardware difference.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and are built on different manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon Pro 455 uses the Baffin chip, based on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER uses the TU116 chip, based on Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 12 nm, giving the NVIDIA part a denser and more modern manufacturing base.

The transistor counts reflect the scale difference. The Radeon Pro 455 has 3,000 million transistors on a die size of 123 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm². The GTX 1650 SUPER has 6,600 million transistors on a die size of 284 mm², with a density of 23.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip has more than double the transistor count and a much larger die, but the density is actually slightly lower due to the larger physical area. This suggests the Turing architecture uses more area per transistor, possibly for features like dedicated compute and shading resources.

The memory subsystems are entirely different. The Radeon Pro 455 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 81.28 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on the same 128-bit bus, but the bandwidth is 192.0 GB/s. That is more than double the bandwidth of the AMD card, which is a critical factor in both gaming and compute workloads. The memory clock on the AMD card is 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA card runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The combination of faster memory technology and higher effective clock speeds gives the NVIDIA card a massive bandwidth advantage.

The compute resources also differ substantially. The Radeon Pro 455 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. In every category, the NVIDIA card has more hardware units. The pixel rate is 13.68 GPixel/s for the AMD card versus 55.20 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card, and the texture rate is 41.04 GTexel/s versus 138.0 GTexel/s. These are not incremental differences; they are multiples of 4x or more.

Floating-point performance follows the same pattern. The Radeon Pro 455 delivers 1,313.3 GFLOPS in FP32, and the same 1,313.3 GFLOPS in FP16 (a 1:1 ratio). The GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 4.416 TFLOPS in FP32 and 8.832 TFLOPS in FP16, a 2:1 ratio. The NVIDIA card has more than three times the FP32 throughput and more than six times the FP16 throughput. The FP16 ratio difference also means the NVIDIA card can accelerate half-precision workloads much more effectively.

Power and physical design differ as well. The Radeon Pro 455 has a TDP of 35 W and uses an MXM module form factor with no power connectors. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W, uses a dual-slot design with a single 6-pin power connector, and requires a 300 W power supply. The AMD card is designed for portable or compact systems, while the NVIDIA card is a standard desktop part. The bus interface also differs: the Radeon Pro 455 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GTX 1650 SUPER uses PCIe 3.0 x16, providing double the host bandwidth.

API support shows a generational shift. The Radeon Pro 455 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher DirectX feature level and Vulkan version on the NVIDIA card indicate newer driver and hardware capabilities. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon Pro 455 scores 10,336. The NVIDIA card is 76.4% faster in this test.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon Pro 455 competitive in Vulkan workloads?

A: No. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50,519 in Geekbench Vulkan, against 12,240 for the Radeon Pro 455. The delta is -75.8%, meaning the AMD card delivers less than a quarter of the NVIDIA card's Vulkan performance.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Radeon Pro 455 has 81.28 GB/s of bandwidth with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 192.0 GB/s with 4 GB of GDDR6 on the same 128-bit bus, more than double the bandwidth and double the capacity.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two cards?

A: The Radeon Pro 455 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the GTX 1650 SUPER is built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA card uses a newer node but has a lower transistor density (23.2M per mm² versus 24.4M per mm²) due to its larger die.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture units?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1,280 shading units and 80 TMUs, compared to 768 shading units and 48 TMUs on the Radeon Pro 455. The NVIDIA card also has 32 ROPs versus 16 ROPs on the AMD card.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 455 has a TDP of 35 W and requires no power connectors. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W and needs a single 6-pin connector, with a suggested power supply of 300 W.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the faster card by a wide margin in every direct benchmark. In the two head-to-head tests, it wins both with deltas of -76.4% and -75.8%, meaning the Radeon Pro 455 is roughly one-quarter as fast in OpenCL and Vulkan. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has more than double the memory bandwidth, more than double the memory capacity, more shading units, more texture units, more ROPs, and significantly higher pixel and texture fill rates.

The Radeon Pro 455 does have a higher average benchmark score (12,831 versus 11,047) and a higher percentile ranking (52nd versus 50th), but this is misleading when comparing these two specific products. The average includes tests that are not part of the direct head-to-head, and the direct comparisons are the relevant metric for a buyer choosing between these two cards. In those comparisons, the NVIDIA card is categorically superior.

The Radeon Pro 455's advantages are limited to power efficiency and form factor. Its 35 W TDP is far lower than the 100 W TDP of the GTX 1650 SUPER, and its MXM module form factor makes it suitable for compact or portable systems where a dual-slot desktop card cannot fit. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a standard dual-slot card with a 6-pin connector and a 300 W PSU requirement, which is typical for a desktop build but not for a thin laptop.

For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only rational choice. The performance gap is so large that the AMD card cannot be recommended for compute or modern graphics tasks. The Radeon Pro 455 is only viable in scenarios where power and space constraints are absolute and the performance penalty is acceptable. The data suggests that the GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior product in almost every measurable way, and the Radeon Pro 455's niche is narrow and specialized.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 455 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER |

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

| Chip | Baffin | TU116 |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Turing |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 6,600 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 284 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 23.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 1530 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 1725 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1270 MHz, 5.1 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 48 | 80 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 13.68 GPixel/s | 55.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 41.04 GTexel/s | 138.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,313.3 GFLOPS | 4.416 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,313.3 GFLOPS (1:1) | 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 35 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 229 mm length, 111 mm height, 35 mm width |

| Release Date | 2016-10-29 | 2019-11-21 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 159 USD |

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER: This card wins in every direct benchmark category. In OpenCL, it scores 43,875 versus 10,336, a 76.4% advantage. In Vulkan, it scores 50,519 versus 12,240, a 75.8% advantage. It also wins on compute resources: 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus 768, 48, and 16 on the AMD card. Its FP32 throughput of 4.416 TFLOPS is more than three times the AMD card's 1,313.3 GFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput of 8.832 TFLOPS is more than six times higher. The 192.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than double the AMD card's 81.28 GB/s, and the 4 GB memory capacity is double the 2 GB on the AMD card. The pixel rate (55.20 GPixel/s) and texture rate (138.0 GTexel/s) are roughly four times and 3.4 times higher, respectively. For any desktop gaming, modern graphics API work, or compute task, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear winner.

AMD Radeon Pro 455: The data shows no benchmark wins for this card. Its only advantages are in power consumption and physical footprint. The 35 W TDP is less than a third of the GTX 1650 SUPER's 100 W, and the MXM module form factor with no power connectors makes it suitable for portable or space-constrained systems. Its higher average benchmark score (12,831 versus 11,047) and higher percentile (52nd versus 50th) are the only recorded metrics where it leads, but these are not head-to-head comparisons and do not reflect direct performance against the NVIDIA card. The Radeon Pro 455 is therefore best suited for systems where the GTX 1650 SUPER cannot physically fit or where power draw is a hard constraint, accepting a large performance penalty in return.