AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a dominant overall victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, which takes 8 of the 9 recorded head-to-head tests. The margins are substantial across most workloads, but the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 does secure one notable win that is worth examining first.

The single AMD victory comes in the Passmark G2D test, a measure of 2D graphics and desktop composition performance. Here the Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 646 against the GTX 1650's 561, a delta of 13.2% in AMD's favor. This is the only test where the two cards trade places, and it suggests that the AMD card retains an edge in traditional 2D rendering tasks despite its overall lower compute output.

Every other benchmark in the comparison goes to NVIDIA, and often by very large margins. The closest NVIDIA win is in the Passmark DirectX 12 test, where the GTX 1650 scores 35 against 22 for the Radeon Pro WX 4100, a 59.1% advantage. The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a 67.9% lead for NVIDIA, with scores of 29629 versus 17642. Geekbench Vulkan is even more lopsided: 33042 to 18703, a 76.7% delta.

The largest gaps appear in the legacy DirectX workloads. Passmark DirectX 10 has the GTX 1650 at 39 versus 16, a 143.8% lead. Passmark DirectX 11 shows a nearly identical pattern: 58 to 24, a 141.7% advantage. Even in DirectX 9, the older API, NVIDIA leads by 121.4% with a score of 124 against AMD's 56. These results indicate that the GTX 1650 is not only faster in modern APIs, but also carries a strong advantage in backward compatibility scenarios.

The two most general-purpose performance metrics reinforce the same story. Passmark G3D, which aggregates rasterization performance across multiple tests, gives the GTX 1650 a score of 7880 versus 3699 for the Radeon Pro WX 4100, a 113% delta. Passmark GPU Compute shows 3048 against 1475, a 106.6% lead for NVIDIA. The average benchmark score across all tests in the database places the GTX 1650 at 7472, while the Radeon Pro WX 4100 sits at 6330. The GTX 1650 also ranks higher in overall GPU percentile, at 40 versus 37 for the AMD card.

When placed against their respective nearest rivals, the two cards occupy similar competitive tiers. The GTX 1650's closest competitor is the Intel Arc A310, which trails by 1%, and it sits just 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M. The Radeon Pro WX 4100's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M350 at a 0.1% delta, with the NVIDIA Quadro K620 just 0.8% behind. These figures show that while the GTX 1650 is clearly the faster card in this pairing, both products are positioned in the same general performance stratum relative to their own peer groups.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies and process technologies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is built on the TU117 chip using the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 23.5 million per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses the Baffin chip with the GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 24.4 million per mm² despite the older node.

The compute configurations differ in interesting ways. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 has more raw stream processors: 1024 shading units and 64 texture mapping units, against 896 shading units and 56 TMUs for the GTX 1650. However, the NVIDIA card has twice the render output units, 32 ROPs versus 16 for AMD. This ROP advantage helps explain the GTX 1650's much higher pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s, compared to 19.22 GPixel/s for the Radeon Pro WX 4100. The texture rate also favors NVIDIA, at 93.24 GTexel/s versus 76.86 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The GTX 1650 runs at a 1485 MHz base clock and boosts to 1665 MHz, while the Radeon Pro WX 4100 has a 1125 MHz base and a 1201 MHz boost. The NVIDIA card also operates its memory at a higher effective speed: 8 Gbps versus 6 Gbps, which contributes to a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s against AMD's 96.00 GB/s, despite both cards using 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Floating-point performance reveals a notable architectural difference. The GTX 1650 delivers 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute and 5.967 TFLOPS of FP16 compute, with the FP16 figure achieved through a 2:1 ratio, meaning the hardware processes half-precision at twice the rate of single-precision. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 offers 2.460 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, as its GCN design executes FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. This means the NVIDIA card has a clear advantage in FP32 workloads and an even larger lead in FP16 applications, while the AMD card treats both precisions identically.

The API support also differs. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12_1, while the Radeon Pro WX 4100 is limited to DirectX 12_0. Both cards offer OpenGL 4.6, but the NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.3 for AMD. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both are purely rasterization and compute focused.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 averages 6330.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the most general 3D test?

A: In the Passmark G3D test, the GTX 1650 scores 7880 against 3699 for the Radeon Pro WX 4100, a 113% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark at all?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins the Passmark G2D test with a score of 646 versus 561 for the GTX 1650, a 13.2% margin.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 1650 has a memory bandwidth of 128.1 GB/s, while the Radeon Pro WX 4100 provides 96.00 GB/s, a difference driven by the NVIDIA card's 8 Gbps effective memory speed versus 6 Gbps for AMD.

Q: How do the two cards compare in compute workloads?

A: In Passmark GPU Compute, the GTX 1650 scores 3048 versus 1475 for the Radeon Pro WX 4100, a 106.6% lead. The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a 67.9% advantage for NVIDIA, with scores of 29629 and 17642 respectively.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 4100 has 1024 shading units, while the GTX 1650 has 896. Despite having fewer shading units, the NVIDIA card achieves higher performance due to its higher clocks and architectural efficiency.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 | AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 |

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

| Architecture | Turing | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 24.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1485 MHz | 1125 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 1201 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2001 MHz, 8 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.1 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 896 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 56 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 53.28 GPixel/s | 19.22 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 93.24 GTexel/s | 76.86 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.984 TFLOPS | 2.460 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions | 229 mm x 111 mm x 35 mm | 168 mm x 69 mm |

| Release Date | 2019-04-22 | 2016-11-09 |

| Launch MSRP | 149 USD | 399 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the clear choice for anyone prioritizing raw 3D rendering performance. It wins every DirectX benchmark in the comparison, from DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, with margins ranging from 59.1% to 143.8%. Its 113% lead in Passmark G3D and 106.6% lead in GPU Compute make it the stronger option for gaming, general 3D workloads, and compute-heavy applications. The higher pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s indicate that it can handle fill-rate-limited scenarios far more effectively than the AMD card. The GTX 1650 also benefits from a wider PCIe interface (x16 versus x8), higher memory bandwidth, and support for the newer DirectX 12_1 feature level.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins only in the Passmark G2D test, where its 646 score represents a 13.2% advantage over the GTX 1650. This makes it the better option for purely 2D desktop environments, multi-monitor setups with basic graphical output, or applications that are heavily dependent on 2D composition rather than 3D rendering. Its four mini-DisplayPort outputs, compared to the single DisplayPort, HDMI, and DVI on the NVIDIA card, give it a clear connectivity advantage for professional workstation setups that require multiple high-resolution displays. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 also draws significantly less power at 50 W versus 75 W and occupies a single slot rather than a dual-slot form factor, making it easier to fit into compact or densely populated systems. Its smaller physical footprint, at 168 mm in length versus 229 mm, further aids in cramped chassis configurations.

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the GTX 1650 is the superior performer in nearly every measurable category, with a 40th percentile ranking versus 37th for the WX 4100. The AMD card's niche lies in 2D output and display flexibility, where its G2D win and four DisplayPort connectors give it a purpose for specific professional environments. For any workload involving 3D graphics, compute, or modern APIs, the GTX 1650 is the unequivocal choice based on the recorded benchmark results.