AMD Radeon Pro 5500M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear and consistent picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins every single head-to-head comparison in this dataset, taking 9 of 9 tests. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M does not record a single victory across any of the nine shared benchmarks. This is not a marginal outcome; the deltas are substantial in most categories, ranging from a modest 13.5% gap in 2D rasterization to a 42.5% deficit for the AMD part in a legacy DirectX workload.

The largest single discrepancy appears in the Passmark DirectX 11 test, where the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 73 against the Radeon Pro 5500M’s 42. That represents a 42.5% advantage for NVIDIA, which is the widest margin in the entire comparison. The DirectX 9 test tells a similar story: NVIDIA posts 148 points versus AMD’s 96, a 35.1% lead. These legacy API results indicate that the NVIDIA architecture retains a pronounced advantage in older, CPU-bound or driver-optimized workloads, which often rely on specific instruction paths that the RDNA 1.0 part does not handle as efficiently.

Moving to modern graphics APIs, the gap narrows but remains firmly in NVIDIA’s favor. In the Vulkan benchmark, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50,519 against the Radeon Pro 5500M’s 35,134 — a 30.5% difference. The OpenCL test shows a 29.1% margin, with NVIDIA at 43,875 and AMD at 31,088. These are compute-oriented workloads, and the data suggests that the NVIDIA part’s higher base clock of 1530 MHz and boost clock of 1725 MHz, combined with its Turing architecture, deliver superior raw execution throughput despite having fewer shading units (1280 versus 1536) and fewer texture mapping units (80 versus 96).

The Passmark DirectX 12 score also favors NVIDIA, albeit with a slightly smaller margin: 45 versus 29, a 35.6% gap. This is notable because DirectX 12 is a modern, low-level API that often rewards architectural efficiency over raw clock speeds. The GTX 1650 SUPER’s pixel rate of 55.20 GPixel/s exceeds the Radeon Pro 5500M’s 46.40 GPixel/s, which partially explains its advantage in rasterization-focused tests. Meanwhile, texture rates are nearly identical — 139.2 GTexel/s for AMD versus 138.0 GTexel/s for NVIDIA — yet the NVIDIA part still wins the DirectX 11 and 12 tests by wide margins, suggesting driver maturity or shader execution efficiency plays a role.

The Compute benchmark shows a 27.6% NVIDIA lead (4,477 versus 3,240), and the 2D test shows a 13.5% edge (749 versus 648). Even the smallest margin is not negligible. Across the board, the GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms the Radeon Pro 5500M by double-digit percentages in eight of nine tests, with the 2D test being the only exception to that pattern. The average benchmark score for the NVIDIA part is 11,047, which places it just below the AMD part’s average of 11,528 — but that average includes a Geekbench Metal score that the NVIDIA card does not have an equivalent for, so it is not a directly comparable figure.

# The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior performer in every shared benchmark. If the decision rests solely on measured performance, the GTX 1650 SUPER wins outright. Its scores are higher in all nine head-to-head tests, with margins that range from 13.5% to 42.5%. The Radeon Pro 5500M’s only notable advantage is its larger 8 GB memory buffer versus the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 4 GB, but the benchmark data does not show this translating into any performance win in the tests conducted.

For users prioritizing compute workloads in APIs like OpenCL and Vulkan, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear choice, delivering 29.1% and 30.5% higher scores, respectively. For those running legacy DirectX 9, 10, or 11 applications, the NVIDIA part extends its lead to 28–42.5%, which would be decisive in older game titles or professional software that still relies on those APIs. The GTX 1650 SUPER also wins the Passmark G3D test by 33.9%, which is the closest single-number proxy for overall graphics performance in this dataset.

The Radeon Pro 5500M, however, is not without merit. Its 8 GB of memory doubles the GTX 1650 SUPER’s capacity, which could matter for workloads that exceed 4 GB of VRAM — though no benchmark in this dataset demonstrates such an advantage. Its 85 W TDP is lower than the NVIDIA part’s 100 W, and it uses no power connectors, making it inherently more suitable for mobile or power-constrained environments. But the benchmark scores do not reward this efficiency with any performance victory.

The percentile rankings are almost even: the Radeon Pro 5500M sits at the 51st percentile, and the GTX 1650 SUPER at the 50th. This suggests that, in the broader GPU landscape, these two parts are closely matched in overall standing. Yet the head-to-head data tells a different story, with NVIDIA consistently ahead. The verdict is straightforward: for raw performance, pick the GTX 1650 SUPER. For memory capacity or lower power draw, the Radeon Pro 5500M has advantages, but they are not reflected in any benchmark win.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture using a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER uses the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process, also from TSMC. This process difference is significant: AMD packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, achieving a density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. NVIDIA, on the other hand, uses 6,600 million transistors over a much larger 284 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 23.2 million per square millimeter. The 7 nm node gives AMD a clear density advantage, but the data shows that NVIDIA’s larger, less dense chip still outperforms it in every test.

The core configurations differ in several ways. The Radeon Pro 5500M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 1650 SUPER has fewer shading units (1,280) and fewer TMUs (80), but the same 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer execution units, the NVIDIA part achieves higher pixel rates (55.20 GPixel/s versus 46.40 GPixel/s) and nearly identical texture rates (138.0 GTexel/s versus 139.2 GTexel/s). This is largely due to clock speeds: the GTX 1650 SUPER runs at a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1725 MHz, while the Radeon Pro 5500M operates at 1000 MHz base and 1450 MHz boost. The floating-point performance is nearly identical — 4.454 TFLOPS for AMD and 4.416 TFLOPS for NVIDIA — yet the NVIDIA part still wins compute benchmarks by roughly 28–30%, indicating that clock speed alone does not explain the gap.

Memory configurations are similar in bus width and bandwidth. Both use 128-bit buses with GDDR6 memory running at 12 Gbps effective, yielding 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth for each. The key difference is capacity: the Radeon Pro 5500M has 8 GB, while the GTX 1650 SUPER has 4 GB. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature levels are equivalent. Neither part has ray tracing or tensor cores. The PCIe interface differs: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The former has higher per-lane bandwidth, but the latter offers more lanes, and the benchmark data does not reveal any practical difference.

Power and physical characteristics diverge sharply. The Radeon Pro 5500M has a TDP of 85 W, no power connectors, and is described as "Portable Device Dependent" for display outputs, indicating it is designed for mobile integration. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a dual-slot desktop card with a 100 W TDP, a single 6-pin power connector, a 300 W suggested PSU, and dimensions of 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. It offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. These are fundamentally different product categories: one is a mobile workstation part, the other a desktop consumer card.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the most benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins all 9 head-to-head benchmarks. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M wins none.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest margin is in the Passmark DirectX 11 test, where the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 73 versus the Radeon Pro 5500M’s 42, a 42.5% difference.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the GTX 1650 SUPER has 4 GB. Both use a 128-bit bus and have 192.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1725 MHz. The Radeon Pro 5500M has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1450 MHz.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Radeon Pro 5500M comes close?

A: The closest margin is in the Passmark G2D test, where the GTX 1650 SUPER leads by 13.5% (749 versus 648). The next smallest gap is 27.6% in the Compute test.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M has an 85 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a 100 W TDP and uses a single 6-pin connector.

# Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins in every scenario measured by the benchmark suite. In legacy API workloads — DirectX 9, 10, and 11 — it holds commanding leads of 35.1%, 28%, and 42.5%, respectively. These are the tests where the NVIDIA part is most decisively ahead, making it the clear choice for running older games or legacy professional applications. The DirectX 12 test also goes to NVIDIA by 35.6%, so even modern low-level APIs do not narrow the gap. For compute tasks, the GTX 1650 SUPER leads in OpenCL by 29.1% and in Vulkan by 30.5%, which positions it as the stronger option for general-purpose GPU computing in those environments. The Passmark G3D score, a broad measure of 3D graphics performance, favors NVIDIA by 33.9%, reinforcing its overall superiority in rasterization workloads.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M has no benchmark wins to claim, but its specifications point to specific use cases where it could be preferable despite the performance deficit. Its 8 GB memory capacity is double that of the GTX 1650 SUPER, which is the only specification where it clearly exceeds the NVIDIA part. For workloads that require more than 4 GB of VRAM — such as larger textures, higher-resolution assets, or certain compute buffers — the Radeon Pro 5500M would not run out of memory where the GTX 1650 SUPER might. Its 85 W TDP is 15 W lower, and it requires no power connectors, making it more suitable for thin-and-light mobile designs. The Radeon Pro 5500M also uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which provides a newer bus interface, though the GTX 1650 SUPER’s PCIe 3.0 x16 offers more lanes. The transistor density of the AMD part is significantly higher (40.5M per mm² versus 23.2M), reflecting its more advanced 7 nm process, but this does not translate into a performance advantage in the measured tests.

In practical terms, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the winner for anyone building a desktop system focused on gaming or general compute, based on the benchmark data. The Radeon Pro 5500M’s strengths lie outside the tested metrics: lower power draw, no external power requirement, and double the memory capacity. For a mobile workstation where battery life and thermal constraints are paramount, the Radeon Pro 5500M may be the only viable option despite its lower scores. But if performance is the sole criterion, the data is conclusive: the GTX 1650 SUPER wins every test, with margins ranging from 13.5% to 42.5%.