AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 are both end-of-life graphics cards, but the data shows they serve entirely different purposes. The GTX 1650 is decisively faster in every shared benchmark, yet the WX 3100 holds a slight edge in average score across its own limited test set, creating a misleading headline comparison. The real distinction lies in workload focus: the GTX 1650 is a gaming-oriented part with massive compute headroom, while the WX 3100 is a professional card with a narrower, more specialized profile. Benchmark results indicate the GTX 1650 wins both head-to-head tests by a wide margin, but the WX 3100’s single-slot, power-efficient design and professional lineage make it a different class of product despite similar average scores.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins outright in every direct comparison available. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 29,629 against the WX 3100’s 7,333, a delta of -75.3% for the AMD card. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap is even larger: 33,042 versus 7,827, a -76.3% difference. These are not close contests; they represent a fundamental performance tier gap. The GTX 1650 also benefits from a much broader benchmark footprint, with scores in Passmark DirectX 9 (124), DirectX 11 (58), and DirectX 12 (35), alongside a Passmark G3D score of 7,880 and a compute score of 3,048. None of these tests exist for the WX 3100, so the AMD card’s only wins are in tests the NVIDIA card doesn’t take part in.

The WX 3100’s advantage is not in raw speed but in form factor and power discipline. It is a single-slot card with no power connectors, whereas the GTX 1650 is dual-slot and also connector-free but physically larger. The WX 3100’s 65 W TDP is lower than the GTX 1650’s 75 W, and its 168 mm length versus 229 mm makes it fit in tighter chassis. For professional workstations prioritizing space and thermal headroom, the WX 3100 wins on physical design. Its GCN 4.0 architecture with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs is smaller in scale but purpose-built for driver-certified applications, though the benchmark data does not include professional-specific tests to quantify that.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior performer for any task that relies on raw compute or graphics throughput. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 4.04 times higher than the WX 3100’s, and its Vulkan score is 4.22 times higher. The GTX 1650 also holds a 40th percentile ranking versus all GPUs, compared to the WX 3100’s 41st, meaning they sit in the same overall tier, but the NVIDIA card reaches that tier with far more headroom in specific workloads. For gaming, content creation, or any general-purpose GPU task, the GTX 1650 is the only rational choice from this pairing.

The WX 3100’s appeal is strictly niche. Its average benchmark score of 7,580 slightly exceeds the GTX 1650’s 7,472, but that average is computed from only two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), both of which the NVIDIA card crushes. The AMD card’s nearest rival list includes the Radeon R7 250 (delta 0.3%) and Intel Arc A310 (delta 0.4%), showing it clusters with entry-level parts. The GTX 1650’s rivals are similarly weak, including the HD 8850M and Intel UHD 750, so neither card is a high-flyer. Ultimately, pick the GTX 1650 for performance, pick the WX 3100 only if a single-slot, 65 W form factor with professional branding is non-negotiable.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two shared benchmarks are Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, and the GTX 1650 wins both decisively. In OpenCL, the NVIDIA card posts 29,629 versus 7,333 for AMD, a delta of -75.3% from the WX 3100’s perspective. That means the GTX 1650 delivers roughly four times the compute performance in this API. In Vulkan, the scores are 33,042 and 7,827, respectively, a -76.3% gap. The GTX 1650’s Vulkan score exceeds its OpenCL score by 3,413 points, while the WX 3100’s Vulkan score is only 494 points higher than its OpenCL result, suggesting the NVIDIA architecture scales better with modern APIs.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the GTX 1650 shows consistent strength across DirectX versions. Its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 124 is the highest among its DirectX results, while DirectX 11 (58) and DirectX 12 (35) are lower, indicating legacy API efficiency. The Passmark G3D score of 7,880 aligns closely with its average of 7,472, confirming that the average is representative. The WX 3100 has no equivalent data, so its only comparable numbers are the two Geekbench tests, both of which are far below the NVIDIA card. The head-to-head record is 2 wins for the GTX 1650, 0 for the WX 3100, with no ties.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 has an average score of 7,580, which is 1.4% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650’s 7,472. However, this average comes from only two tests for the AMD card, while the NVIDIA card has ten tests.

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

A: The GTX 1650 scores 33,042 in Vulkan, which is 25,215 points higher than the WX 3100’s 7,827. This represents a -76.3% delta from the AMD card’s perspective.

Q: Do both cards require external power connectors?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 have no power connectors, and both suggest a 250 W power supply.

Q: What is the physical size difference?

A: The WX 3100 is 168 mm long and 69 mm high, while the GTX 1650 is 229 mm long, 111 mm high, and 35 mm wide. The WX 3100 is single-slot, the GTX 1650 is dual-slot.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The NVIDIA GTX 1650 has a transistor density of 23.5M per mm², compared to the AMD WX 3100’s 21.4M per mm². The GTX 1650 also has more total transistors at 4,700 million versus 2,200 million.

Q: Do the cards support different DirectX versions?

A: Yes. The WX 3100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 1650 supports Vulkan 1.4 versus the WX 3100’s Vulkan 1.3.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 is built on GCN 4.0 architecture using the Lexa chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 uses the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip, made on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The GTX 1650 has more than double the transistor count and a larger die, but the density difference is modest: 23.5M per mm² versus 21.4M per mm². Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both rely on traditional shading.

The GTX 1650’s Turing architecture brings features like a 2:1 FP16 ratio, allowing 5.967 TFLOPS of FP16 performance versus 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32. The WX 3100 offers 1:1 FP16, meaning its FP16 performance equals its FP32 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS. This is a significant architectural difference: the NVIDIA card can double its throughput on FP16 workloads, while the AMD card cannot. The GTX 1650 also has more execution resources: 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus 512, 32, and 16 for the WX 3100. Pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 19.50 GPixel/s for AMD, and texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s versus 39.01 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

The most glaring difference is memory bandwidth: the GTX 1650 delivers 128.1 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s for the WX 3100, despite both using 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. This comes from faster memory clocks: 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) on NVIDIA versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on AMD. Clock speeds also favor NVIDIA, with a base of 1485 MHz and boost of 1665 MHz, compared to 925 MHz base and 1219 MHz boost for AMD. The GTX 1650’s FP32 performance is 2.984 TFLOPS, more than double the WX 3100’s 1,248.3 GFLOPS.

Physical and interface differences abound. The WX 3100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GTX 1650 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the WX 3100 offers 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 1650 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. Power draw is 65 W for AMD and 75 W for NVIDIA, with both requiring no external connectors and suggesting a 250 W PSU. The WX 3100 is single-slot, 168 mm long, and 69 mm high; the GTX 1650 is dual-slot, 229 mm long, 111 mm high, and 35 mm wide. Release dates differ by nearly two years: the WX 3100 launched in June 2017, the GTX 1650 in April 2019. The AMD card’s launch MSRP was 199 USD, while the NVIDIA card’s was 149 USD.