AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 occupy the same entry-level performance bracket, but the recorded data shows they get there by very different routes. Both draw 75 W, both need no auxiliary power connectors, and both sit in the lower-middle of the database's historical rankings, with the WX 5100 at the 44th percentile versus all GPUs and the GTX 1650 at the 40th. Yet in direct head-to-head benchmarks the GTX 1650 wins eight of nine tests. The WX 5100's case rests on memory capacity, 2D performance, and its professional feature set, not on raw benchmark wins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The GTX 1650 dominates the gaming-oriented results. Its largest victory comes in PassMark DirectX 11, where it scores 58 against the WX 5100's 36, a 37.9 percent gap. DirectX 12 goes the same way: 35 versus 26, a 25.7 percent lead. Legacy DirectX 9 shows 124 against 88, a 29 percent advantage, and DirectX 10 lands at 39 versus 29, good for a 25.6 percent margin.

The overall PassMark G3D score, the broadest 3D measure in the database, tells the same story: 7880 for the GTX 1650 against 5496 for the WX 5100, a 30.3 percent lead. Compute also favors NVIDIA decisively. PassMark GPU Compute puts the GTX 1650 at 3048 versus 2053, a 32.6 percent win. Geekbench OpenCL shows 29629 against 24217 (18.3 percent), and Geekbench Vulkan shows 33042 against 26909 (18.6 percent).

The WX 5100's single win is PassMark G2D, where it scores 777 against the GTX 1650's 561, a 38.5 percent lead. That is not a trivial number. For desktop compositing, multi-monitor 2D work, and interface-heavy professional workflows, 2D throughput matters, and here the WX 5100 is clearly the stronger card. It is the only test in the set where AMD comes out ahead, but the margin is the second largest in the entire comparison.

Aggregate averages frame the gap: the WX 5100 averages 8863 across its recorded benchmarks versus 7472 for the GTX 1650. Note that those averages include different test mixes, so the head-to-head suite is the fairer comparison, and it favors the GTX 1650 eight tests to one. Context from each card's rival set reinforces the point: the GTX 1650 trades blows with the Intel Arc A310 (within 1 percent), the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, the Intel UHD Graphics 750, and the AMD Radeon R7 350, while the WX 5100 sits nearly dead even with the Radeon R9 M265X, the Radeon 550X, the RTX 3050 A Mobile, and the GTX 460 v2.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 wins every 3D scenario in the database. Gaming across DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, Vulkan rendering, and OpenCL compute all favor it by margins between roughly 18 and 38 percent. If the workload involves rendering frames, the data says the GTX 1650 is the faster card, full stop.

The WX 5100 wins on three fronts. First, 2D performance: its 38.5 percent G2D lead makes it the better choice for pure 2D professional use. Second, memory: it carries 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, double the GTX 1650's 4 GB capacity and well above its 128.1 GB/s on a 128-bit bus. Workloads that fit in 8 GB but not 4 GB will not run acceptably on the GTX 1650 at all, regardless of its speed advantage. Third, form factor and display: it is a single-slot card with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, compared to a dual-slot card with one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.4a. Four display outputs from a single-slot, connector-free 75 W card is a genuine advantage for multi-monitor professional installations where slots are scarce.

FP16 workloads deserve a mention. The WX 5100 manages 3.892 TFLOPS at half precision, identical to its FP32 rate (1:1), while the GTX 1650 reaches 5.967 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. NVIDIA wins the raw half-precision number, but its FP32 output of 2.984 TFLOPS trails the WX 5100's 3.892 TFLOPS, so pure FP32 compute favors the AMD card on paper even though the PassMark compute result favors NVIDIA in practice.

Architecture Differences

These cards come from different eras and design philosophies. The WX 5100 is the Ellesmere chip on AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture, part of the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation, built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. It packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, a density of 24.6M per mm². The GTX 1650 is the TU117 chip on NVIDIA's Turing architecture, from the GeForce 16 generation, built on TSMC's 12 nm node with 4,700 million transistors across 200 mm² at 23.5M per mm². Despite fewer transistors and a smaller die, Turing's efficiency shows in the clock speeds: 1485 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost versus the WX 5100's 713 MHz base and 1086 MHz boost.

Resource allocation differs sharply. The WX 5100 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and the same 32 ROPs. The WX 5100 leads in texture throughput at 121.6 GTexel/s versus 93.24 GTexel/s, while the GTX 1650 leads in pixel fill at 53.28 GPixel/s versus 34.75 GPixel/s, thanks to its much higher clocks. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores.

Feature support slightly favors the GTX 1650 on paper: it supports DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12_0, and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3, with both at OpenGL 4.6. The WX 5100 predates the GTX 1650 by years, launching in November 2016 as a workstation product; the GTX 1650 launched in April 2019 as a gaming product. Both are now end-of-life, with the WX 5100 succeeded by Radeon Pro Vega and the GTX 1650 following the GeForce 10 line and preceding GeForce 20.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster for gaming?

A: The GTX 1650, by a wide margin. It wins every DirectX and Vulkan test in the database, including a 37.9 percent lead in PassMark DirectX 11 and a 30.3 percent lead in the overall PassMark G3D score.

Q: Does the WX 5100 win anything?

A: Yes, PassMark G2D, at 777 versus 561, a 38.5 percent lead. It is the WX 5100's only head-to-head win, and it matters for 2D and multi-monitor professional use.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: They are identical: 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU for each. Either card drops into a slot-powered system.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The WX 5100, with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 160.0 GB/s. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB on a 128-bit bus at 128.1 GB/s.

Q: How many displays can each drive?

A: The WX 5100 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs from a single-slot card. The GTX 1650 offers one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.4a across a dual-slot design.

Q: What launch MSRPs did they carry?

A: Launch MSRP was 499 USD for the WX 5100 and 149 USD for the GTX 1650.

The Verdict

For gaming, the data is unambiguous: the GTX 1650 is faster in every 3D test, by margins that range from substantial to overwhelming. Pick it for any frame-rendering workload.

Pick the WX 5100 when its specific strengths apply. If the workload needs more than 4 GB of memory, the GTX 1650 simply cannot compete. If the setup requires four displays from a single-slot card, the WX 5100 is the only option here. If 2D throughput dominates the workload, its 38.5 percent G2D lead decides it. And its higher FP32 theoretical output, 3.892 versus 2.984 TFLOPS, gives it a paper edge in shading-heavy compute even though the measured compute benchmarks favor NVIDIA.

Both are end-of-life parts occupying similar territory in the database's all-GPU rankings, 44th versus 40th percentile, so neither is a performance flagship. The choice comes down to workload: 3D speed with the GTX 1650, capacity, connectivity, and 2D throughput with the WX 5100.

Specification Differences

• Manufacturer: AMD versus NVIDIA
• Chip: Ellesmere versus TU117
• Architecture: GCN 4.0 versus Turing
• Generation: Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) versus GeForce 16
• Process node: 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) versus 12 nm (TSMC)
• Transistors: 5,700 million versus 4,700 million
• Die size: 232 mm² versus 200 mm²
• Transistor density: 24.6M/mm² versus 23.5M/mm²
• Base clock: 713 MHz versus 1485 MHz
• Boost clock: 1086 MHz versus 1665 MHz
• Memory size: 8 GB versus 4 GB
• Bus width: 256 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 160.0 GB/s versus 128.1 GB/s
• Shading units: 1792 versus 896
• TMUs: 112 versus 56
• ROPs: 32 versus 32 (identical)
• Pixel rate: 34.75 GPixel/s versus 53.28 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 121.6 GTexel/s versus 93.24 GTexel/s
• FP32: 3.892 TFLOPS versus 2.984 TFLOPS
• FP16: 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1)
• Slot width: Single-slot versus dual-slot
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX: 12 (12_0) versus 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan: 1.3 versus 1.4
• Card length: 173 mm versus 229 mm
• Card width: not listed versus 35 mm
• Release date: November 2016 versus April 2019
• Launch MSRP: 499 USD versus 149 USD
• Shared: 75 W TDP, no power connectors, 250 W suggested PSU, PCIe 3.0 x16, GDDR5, OpenGL 4.6, identical height (111 to 112 mm)