AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along generational and architectural lines. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins every recorded head-to-head comparison, and the margins are substantial. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 against the Radeon Pro WX 2100's 8,536, a delta of 414%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the NVIDIA card posts 50,519 versus 10,770, a 369.1% advantage. These are not close contests; they are category-level separations.

The Radeon Pro WX 2100 does not win a single benchmark in the paired dataset. Its wins, if any exist, would have to come from areas not covered by the recorded tests. The data as presented shows zero wins for the AMD card. That means any use case favoring the WX 2100 must be inferred from its specification profile rather than from direct benchmark results. The card's 35 W TDP and single-slot design suggest low-power or space-constrained professional deployments, but the recorded performance figures do not support a compute or graphics win.

For the GTX 1650 SUPER, the wins are absolute in compute-oriented workloads. OpenCL and Vulkan both stress raw shader output and memory bandwidth, and the NVIDIA card dominates both. The 128-bit memory bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth against the WX 2100's 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s explains part of the gap. The shading unit count also differs massively: 1,280 versus 512. In any workload that scales with shader count or bandwidth, the GTX 1650 SUPER will win by a wide margin.

The WX 2100's only potential edge is in power efficiency per watt, though the database does not provide a direct efficiency metric. At 35 W versus 100 W, the AMD card uses less power, but its performance is so far behind that the efficiency ratio is unlikely to favor it in absolute throughput. The GTX 1650 SUPER produces 4.416 TFLOPS FP32 against the WX 2100's 1,248.3 GFLOPS (roughly 1.25 TFLOPS). That is a 3.5x raw compute advantage for NVIDIA, at less than 3x the power draw.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the stronger card in every measured dimension. Its average benchmark score of 11,047 places it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 sits at 9,653 and the 46th percentile. The delta between their averages is about 14.4% in favor of NVIDIA, but the head-to-head tests show a much larger gap in specific workloads.

Who should pick the GTX 1650 SUPER? Anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads. The card beats the WX 2100 by 414% and 369.1% respectively. It also has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 2 GB of GDDR5, double the memory bus width, and a newer architecture (Turing versus GCN 4.0). For compute, rendering, or general GPU-accelerated tasks, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear choice.

Who should pick the Radeon Pro WX 2100? The data does not support a performance-based recommendation. The card's advantages are physical: it is single-slot, 168 mm long, requires no power connectors, and draws only 35 W. In a system with strict power or space limits, the WX 2100 might fit where the GTX 1650 SUPER cannot. But the recorded benchmarks show no workload where the AMD card wins. The Verdict is that the GTX 1650 SUPER is the better GPU, with the WX 2100 reserved for niche low-power professional contexts that the performance data cannot justify on merit alone.

The nearest rivals confirm the positioning. The GTX 1650 SUPER sits within 1.5% of the GeForce MX350 and within 0.4% of high-end RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q parts, which is a strange grouping driven by average scores. The WX 2100 clusters near the GTX 960M, Quadro P4000, and Quadro K5000, all within 0.6% of its average score 9,653. Neither card is an outlier in its own peer group.

Given the end-of-life status for both products, this comparison is historical rather than a purchase recommendation for today. The GTX 1650 SUPER launched at 159 USD, the WX 2100 at 149 USD, but the database pricing guidance stops there. The performance hierarchy, however, is unambiguous.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head table lists two tests, and the GTX 1650 SUPER wins both. Geekbench OpenCL is the first. The NVIDIA card scores 43,875, the AMD card 8,536. The delta of 414% means the GTX 1650 SUPER is roughly 5.1 times the WX 512's score. That is the largest relative win in the dataset. OpenCL workloads that run on the WX 2100 at 8,536 would run at roughly 43,875 on the GTX 1650 SUPER, a transformative jump in throughput. The 1,248.3 GFLOPS FP32 ceiling of the AMD card caps its OpenCL ceiling, while the NVIDIA card's 4.416 TFLOPS sits well above.

Geekbench Vulkan is second. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50,519 against 10,770 for the WX 2100, a 369.1% delta. Vulkan 1.4 support on the NVIDIA card versus Vulkan 1.3 on the AMD card is a minor version difference, but the performance gap is anything but minor. The 50519 score is about 4.7 times the 10770 score, meaning the same Vulkan workload would complete in less than a quarter of the time on the NVIDIA card.

The wins are consistent across both APIs. OpenCL and Vulkan are different compute models, but the GTX 1650 SUPER dominates both. That consistency suggests the underlying hardware advantage is not API-specific. The 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the NVIDIA card dwarf the 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on the AMD card. The memory subsystem reinforces the gap: 192.0 GB/s versus 48.00 GB/s is a 4x bandwidth advantage.

The pixel rate also favors NVIDIA at 55.20 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s, and texture rate at 138.0 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s. These are not close numbers. The GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead in every fill-rate metrics, compute throughput, and memory bandwidth.

Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those features do not differentiate the two. The absence of those features means the comparison is purely about traditional rasterization and compute performance.

The winsA count is 2 and winsB count is 0. The data leaves no room for interpretation on the performance side.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has an average score of 11,047, while the AMD Radeon 512 has an average of 9,653. The GTX 512 leads by about 14.4%, a 414% delta.

Q: How big is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 192.0 GB/s on the 128-bit bus is exactly 4 times the WX 48.0 GB/s on the 64-bit bus 2100. The 4x bandwidth advantage is a major factor in the NVIDIA card's 4x compute lead.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference in raw numbers, and what about FP16, if applicable?

A: The GTX 4.416 TFLOPS FP32 output is roughly 3.5 times the WX 1,248.3 GFLOPS FP32 output. The FP16 comparison differs by generation, with the GTX 16-series offering 8.832 TFLOPS, while the WX 1,248.3 GFLOPS FP16 is the same as its FP32 figure.

Q: What is the power draw and physical size difference, per the recorded specs?

A: The GTX 100 W TDP is 65 W lower than the WX 35 W TDP 2100, and the GTX 1650 SUPER is 229 mm long whereas the WX 2100 is 168 mm long 2100 SUPER dual-slot 35 W is single-slot.

Q: Do either of the two support ray tracing or tensor cores, and what does that mean, given the two not support, mean for the two support, mean for the two 100 W and the WX 4.5 2100, 4 GB 190.4 100 W 1280 50,192.0 35, 229, 128, 4, 192, 4, 1280, 80, 32, 55.20, 138.0, 4.416, 8.832, 100, 159, 2019, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1:

A: Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores for the GTX 1650 SUPER, and the WX 2100 also lacks both. The absence means the two cards rely entirely on traditional shader-based rendering and compute, with no ray tracing acceleration or AI tensor processing available for either.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 1650 SUPER uses the TU116 chip on a 12 nm TSMC process with 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, giving a density of 23.2M transistors per mm². The WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, at 21.4M transistors per mm². The architectures belong to different generations: Turing for NVIDIA versus GCN 4.0 for AMD. Turing introduces a 2:1 FP16 rate, doubling the FP16 throughput to 8.832 TFLOPS, whereas GCN 4.0 runs FP16 at 1:1, matching its FP32 rate of 1,248.3 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA card's transistor count is 3 times higher and its die is 2.75 times larger, but the transistor density is only slightly higher at 23.2M per mm² versus 21.4M per mm².

The memory architectures differ as well. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus at 12 Gbps effective, yielding 192.0 GB/s. The WX 2100 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus at 6 Gbps effective, yielding 48.0 GB/s. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has a wider PCIe interface at PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8 on the WX 2100. The shader array differences are stark: 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs and 32 ROPs for the GTX 1650 SUPER, versus 512 shading units 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs for the WX 2100.

The bus interface difference matters for bandwidth beyond memory: the GTX 1650 SUPER's PCIe 3.0 x16 offers double the PCIe 3.0 x8's bandwidth for CPU-GPU transfers. The WX 2100's narrower interface, at 192.0 GB/s, is slower for data transfer but the PCIe 35 W, 168 mm x8 interface. 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs 1x 6-pin 300 W 2019-11-21T17:00:00.000Z 159 USD 2017-06-03T17:00:00.000Z null 1500 MHz 925 MHz 1219 MHz 1530 MHz 1725 MHz 1500 MHz 12 Gbps effective 6 Gbps effective. The WX 2100 has no power connectors and suggests a 200 W PSU, while the GTX 1650 SUPER uses a single 6-pin connector and suggests a 300 W PSU.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a base clock of 1530 MHz and boost of 1725 MHz, while the WX 2100 runs at 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost. Memory size is 4 GB GDDR6 versus 2 GB GDDR5. Bus width is 128 bit against 64 bit. Bandwidth is 192.0 GB/s versus 48.00 GB/s. Shading units are 1280 versus 512, TMUs 80 versus 32, ROPs 32 versus 16. Pixel rate is 55.20 GPixel/s versus 19.50 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 138.0 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s. FP32 is 4.416 TFLOPS versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS. FP16 is 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1). TDP is 100 W versus 35 W. Slot width is Dual-slot versus Single-slot. Power connectors are 1x 6-pin versus None. Suggested PSU is 300 W versus 200 W. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus 12 (12_0). Vulkan support is 1.4 versus 1.3. OpenGL is 4.6 for both. Dimensions are 229 mm x 111 mm x 35 mm versus 168 mm x 69 mm (width not recorded). Release dates differ: 2019-11-21 for the GTX 1650 SUPER versus 2017-06-03 for the WX 2100. The GTX 1650 SUPER's predecessor is GeForce 10 and successor is GeForce 20; the WX 2100's predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and successor is Radeon Pro Vega. The GTX 1650 SUPER's launch MSRP is 159 USD, and the WX 2100's launch MSRP is 149 USD.