AMD Radeon Pro 5300M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and AMD Radeon Pro 5300M are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions that nevertheless present a clear performance hierarchy. The data shows a decisive, near-total victory for the NVIDIA part across every shared benchmark, with margins that range from modest to overwhelming. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, the architectural reasons behind them, and what the specification sheets reveal about each product’s intended role.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The GTX 1650 SUPER wins all nine benchmark comparisons against the Radeon Pro 5300M, with no countervailing victories for the AMD part. The most lopsided result comes in Geekbench Vulkan, where the NVIDIA card scores 50,519 against AMD’s 27,912, a delta of 81%. This is not a marginal edge but a fundamental gap in compute throughput under the Vulkan API.

DirectX 11 performance tells a similar story. The GTX 1650 SUPER posts a Passmark score of 73 versus the Radeon’s 37, a 97.3% advantage. This near-doubling of performance in a legacy API suggests that the NVIDIA architecture retains efficiency where the AMD part struggles. The DirectX 9 gap is also stark: 148 versus 80, an 85% lead for NVIDIA. Even in DirectX 12, where modern architectures typically shine, the NVIDIA card leads by 80% (45 vs. 25).

The Geekbench OpenCL results are less extreme but still decisive. NVIDIA scores 43,875 against AMD’s 29,252, a 50% difference. This is a significant margin for a compute-oriented workload, indicating that the GTX 1650 SUPER is not just a gaming part but also a capable general-purpose compute device.

Passmark G3D, a broad gaming and graphics metric, shows NVIDIA ahead by 72% (10,179 vs. 5,918). This is the most representative single-score comparison for overall graphics performance, and the gap is immense. The GPU compute benchmark follows with a 68.4% lead (4,477 vs. 2,658), reinforcing the compute advantage.

The smallest margin is in Passmark G2D, where NVIDIA leads 749 to 582, a 28.7% edge. Even in 2D workloads, the NVIDIA part is faster, though the gap is less dramatic than in 3D or compute tests. DirectX 10 shows a 38.9% lead (50 vs. 36), which is the second-smallest delta.

Overall average benchmark scores confirm the trend. The GTX 1650 SUPER averages 11,047 across its benchmark suite, while the Radeon Pro 5300M averages 10,013. The NVIDIA part also sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 48th percentile for the AMD part. While both are mid-pack performers, the NVIDIA card is clearly higher within that band.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses NVIDIA’s Turing architecture on the TU116 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon Pro 5300M uses AMD’s RDNA 1.0 architecture on the Navi 14 chip, also from TSMC but on a more advanced 7 nm node.

The transistor counts are nearly identical: 6,600 million for the NVIDIA chip and 6,400 million for AMD. However, the die size differs substantially. The TU116 measures 284 mm², while the Navi 14 is only 158 mm². This yields a transistor density of 23.2M per mm² for NVIDIA versus 40.5M per mm² for AMD, a direct consequence of the 7 nm process.

Clock speeds show a significant divergence. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1725 MHz. The Radeon Pro 5300M runs at a much lower 1000 MHz base and 1250 MHz boost. This 475 MHz boost clock difference is a primary driver of the performance gap.

Shading units, texture mapping units, and ROPs are identical: 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on both parts. Yet the fill rates differ because of the clock speeds. NVIDIA achieves 55.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 138.0 GTexel/s texture rate, versus AMD’s 40.00 GPixel/s and 100.0 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 4.416 TFLOPS for NVIDIA and 3.200 TFLOPS for AMD, a 38% difference in raw floating-point throughput.

Memory configurations are identical: 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth and 12 Gbps effective speed. This means memory is not a differentiator; the performance gap comes entirely from the GPU cores and clocks.

The power envelope differs. NVIDIA has a 100 W TDP with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W PSU. The AMD part has an 85 W TDP with no power connectors, reflecting its mobile-oriented design. The bus interface also differs: NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which offers similar bandwidth but a different lane configuration.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU 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 5300M scores 10,013. This places the NVIDIA part at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 48th percentile for the AMD part.

Q: How large is the performance gap in DirectX 11?

A: In the Passmark DirectX 11 test, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 73 versus the Radeon Pro 5300M’s 37, representing a 97.3% lead. This is the largest margin of any shared benchmark.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both feature 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth and 12 Gbps effective speed. Memory is not a differentiating factor between the two.

Q: What is the clock speed difference?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost of 1725 MHz. The Radeon Pro 5300M runs at 1000 MHz base and 1250 MHz boost, a 475 MHz difference in boost clocks.

Q: Are the architectures the same?

A: No. The NVIDIA part uses the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process, while the AMD part uses RDNA 1.0 on a 7 nm process. The die sizes are 284 mm² and 158 mm², respectively.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute capability?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 4.416 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 3.200 TFLOPS for the Radeon Pro 5300M. This is a 38% advantage for NVIDIA.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification fields, despite sharing identical memory and core counts.

• Process Node: NVIDIA uses 12 nm; AMD uses 7 nm.
• Die Size: NVIDIA’s TU116 is 284 mm²; AMD’s Navi 14 is 158 mm².
• Transistor Density: NVIDIA has 23.2M / mm²; AMD has 40.5M / mm².
• Base Clock: NVIDIA at 1530 MHz; AMD at 1000 MHz.
• Boost Clock: NVIDIA at 1725 MHz; AMD at 1250 MHz.
• Pixel Rate: NVIDIA at 55.20 GPixel/s; AMD at 40.00 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: NVIDIA at 138.0 GTexel/s; AMD at 100.0 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: NVIDIA at 4.416 TFLOPS; AMD at 3.200 TFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: NVIDIA at 8.832 TFLOPS; AMD at 6.400 TFLOPS.
• TDP: NVIDIA at 100 W; AMD at 85 W.
• Power Connectors: NVIDIA has 1x 6-pin; AMD has none.
• Suggested PSU: NVIDIA specifies 300 W; AMD has no specified value.
• Bus Interface: NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x16; AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8.
• Display Outputs: NVIDIA has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a; AMD is listed as “Portable Device Dependent.”
• Slot Width: NVIDIA is dual-slot; AMD has no listed slot width.
• Dimensions: NVIDIA is 229 mm x 111 mm x 35 mm; AMD has no listed dimensions.
• Release Date: NVIDIA launched 2019-11-21; AMD launched 2019-11-12.
• Launch MSRP: NVIDIA was 159 USD; AMD has no listed MSRP.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M in every single shared benchmark. The smallest margin is 28.7% in Passmark G2D, and the largest is 97.3% in DirectX 11. The average benchmark scores reinforce this, with NVIDIA’s 11,047 versus AMD’s 10,013.

From a purely performance standpoint, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior product. Its higher clock speeds, larger die, and greater FP32 throughput translate into consistent wins across all APIs and workloads. The 12 nm Turing architecture, despite being on an older node, delivers more raw performance than the 7 nm RDNA 1.0 part.

However, the Radeon Pro 5300M has its own merits. It draws 15 W less power (85 W versus 100 W), requires no power connectors, and is designed for portable devices, as indicated by its “Portable Device Dependent” display outputs and lack of dimensions. This suggests it is optimized for thin-and-light mobile workstations where power efficiency and space are paramount.

The choice between the two depends on the use case. For users who prioritize maximum performance in a desktop or larger mobile chassis, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear winner, offering over 70% higher G3D scores and 68.4% higher compute performance. Its 159 USD launch MSRP also made it an accessible option for its performance class.

For users who need a GPU for a compact, low-power mobile workstation where the 85 W TDP and connector-free design are critical constraints, the Radeon Pro 5300M is the only viable option of the two. It still delivers 4 GB of GDDR6 memory and full DirectX 12 support, making it a competent part for its niche.

The benchmark data does not support any scenario where the Radeon Pro 5300M is the faster GPU. It is a question of performance versus power efficiency and form factor. The GTX 1650 SUPER wins on every metric of speed; the Radeon Pro 5300M wins on power draw and integration flexibility.