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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins every single head-to-head comparison in the database, taking all nine recorded tests. The AMD Radeon RX 5500M does not secure a single victory in any of the shared workloads, which makes the overall comparison one-sided across both compute and graphics applications.

The largest gap appears in the Vulkan API workload. The RX 5500M scores 35,693 in geekbench_vulkan, while the GTX 1650 SUPER reaches 50,519. That is a 29.3% advantage for NVIDIA, the biggest percentage delta of any test in the set. This suggests a substantial difference in driver efficiency or architectural scheduling under Vulkan, and it is not a marginal gap. In OpenCL, the NVIDIA card posts 43,875 against the AMD card's 38,725, a smaller but still meaningful 11.7% lead. Both are compute-oriented APIs, but the margin in Vulkan is more than double the margin in OpenCL, indicating that the NVIDIA part scales better as API overhead changes.

The DirectX results are equally lopsided. In passmark_directx_9, the RX 5500M records 100 points versus 148 for the GTX 1650 SUPER, a 32.4% deficit. Moving to DirectX 10, the AMD card scores 39 against NVIDIA's 50, a 22% deficit. The DirectX 11 test shows the widest relative gap in the entire benchmark set: the RX 5500M manages only 35 points while the GTX 1650 SUPER hits 73, a 52.1% shortfall. That is more than double the performance in a legacy API, which suggests that the NVIDIA architecture retains stronger compatibility or optimization for older DirectX feature levels. DirectX 12 narrows the gap somewhat: AMD scores 28 versus NVIDIA's 45, a 37.8% deficit. Even in the newest API in the set, the NVIDIA card still leads by a substantial margin.

Rasterization and compute workloads follow the same trend. In passmark_g3d, the RX 5500M scores 5,848 while the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 10,179, a 42.5% advantage for NVIDIA. This is the most representative overall graphics score in the set, and the delta is large enough to classify the two cards in different performance tiers despite both being 4 GB parts. The compute test, passmark_gpu_compute, shows 2,316 for AMD against 4,477 for NVIDIA, a 48.3% lead for the latter. The 2D test is also one-sided: 414 for the RX 5500M against 749 for the GTX 1650 SUPER, a 44.7% deficit.

There is no test where the AMD part leads, not even by a small margin. The closest result is OpenCL at 11.7%, and the largest is DirectX 11 at 52.1%. Averaging the deltas across all nine tests gives a rough picture of dominance, but the raw numbers are clearer: the GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms the RX 5500M in every recorded workload, with most deltas falling between 22% and 52%. The only area where the RX 5500M is not drastically behind is OpenCL, and even there it loses by double digits.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear choice for anyone prioritizing raw performance across a broad set of APIs. It wins all nine head-to-head tests, including the most representative graphics score in the database (passmark_g3d) by 42.5%, and it leads by even wider margins in legacy DirectX workloads. The AMD Radeon RX 5500M is not competitive in any measured scenario, and the data does not support a recommendation for it on performance grounds alone.

The GTX 1650 SUPER also holds the higher percentile ranking relative to all GPUs tested in the database. It sits at the 50th percentile, while the RX 5500M sits at the 54th percentile. At first glance, that seems contradictory given the head-to-head results, but the average benchmark scores tell a different story. The RX 5500M has an average benchmark score of 13,356, which is higher than the GTX 1650 SUPER's average of 11,047. This is because the RX 5500M's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD FirePro M6100 at 13,354 and the AMD Radeon HD 8950M at 13,376, while the GTX 1650 SUPER's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 550 at 11,075 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 at 10,883. The RX 5500M competes in a higher-scoring neighborhood despite losing the direct comparison, which explains the percentile inversion.

Who should pick which? The data indicates that the GTX 1650 SUPER is the stronger card for the majority of workloads, especially DirectX 11, DirectX 12, Vulkan, and 3D graphics. The RX 5500M is the better pick only if the surrounding context in the database matters: it has a higher average benchmark score and a higher percentile ranking, which could matter in aggregate statistical comparisons. But for any individual workload in the head-to-head set, the NVIDIA card wins. The RX 5500M's average score is propped up by a different set of rivals, not by outperforming the GTX 1650 SUPER. In practical terms, the data favors NVIDIA for gaming and compute, while AMD's card retains a statistical edge only in the broader database context.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The AMD Radeon RX 5500M is built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 14 chip, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER uses the Turing architecture with the TU116 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: AMD's 7 nm node allows for a much smaller die size of 158 mm², while NVIDIA's 12 nm node results in a die size of 284 mm². Despite the larger die, NVIDIA packs slightly more transistors: 6,600 million versus 6,400 million for AMD. That gives the RX 5500M a much higher transistor density of 40.5 million per mm², compared to 23.2 million per mm² for the GTX 1650 SUPER.

The architectural lineage also differs. The RX 5500M belongs to the Radeon RX 5000 series, specifically the Navi Mobile generation, and its predecessor is Polaris Mobile. The GTX 1650 SUPER belongs to the GeForce 10-series per the database, uses the Turing architecture, and its generation is listed as GeForce 16. NVIDIA's predecessor for this part is GeForce 10, and its successor is GeForce 20. AMD's successor is listed as null, meaning no direct follow-up is recorded in the database.

Both cards support the same API levels: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both architectures. The transistor density difference reflects the process advantage: AMD fits more transistors per square millimeter on 7 nm, while NVIDIA uses a larger, less dense die on 12 nm to achieve similar transistor counts. The practical effect appears in the clock speeds and power behavior, but the architectural split is clear: RDNA 1.0 on a modern node versus Turing on an older, larger node.

Specification Differences

The RX 5500M and GTX 1650 SUPER differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD card has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA card has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. AMD leads in shading units and TMUs, while ROP counts are identical. The clock speeds also favor AMD in base clock: 1,375 MHz versus 1,530 MHz for NVIDIA, meaning NVIDIA actually has a higher base clock. The boost clock is 1,645 MHz for AMD and 1,725 MHz for NVIDIA, again favoring the NVIDIA part. AMD lists a game clock of 1,448 MHz, while NVIDIA has no game clock specified. The memory clock is 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for AMD and 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA.

Memory configurations are identical in capacity and type: both have 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The bandwidth differs: AMD reaches 224.0 GB/s, while NVIDIA reaches 192.0 GB/s. AMD has the higher memory bandwidth, but NVIDIA still wins the benchmarks, suggesting that bandwidth is not the limiting factor. The pixel rates are close: 52.64 GPixel/s for AMD versus 55.20 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. The texture rate is 144.8 GTexel/s for AMD versus 138.0 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 compute is 4.632 TFLOPS for AMD and 4.416 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. FP16 is 9.265 TFLOPS (2:1) for AMD and 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) for NVIDIA. AMD leads in every compute throughput metric on paper, yet loses every benchmark, which points to architectural efficiency or driver differences as the deciding factor.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The RX 5500M draws 85 W, while the GTX 1650 SUPER draws 100 W. The NVIDIA card is dual-slot, 229 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 35 mm wide, with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The AMD card has no slot width, dimensions, or suggested PSU listed, and uses no power connectors. The bus interface differs: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent for AMD, while NVIDIA lists 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The release dates are close: October 2019 for AMD and November 2019 for NVIDIA. Launch MSRP for the GTX 1650 SUPER is 159 USD, while the AMD card has no launch MSRP recorded. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the most benchmarks in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins all nine head-to-head benchmark tests against the AMD Radeon RX 5500M, including OpenCL, Vulkan, DirectX 9 through 12, 2D, 3D, and compute workloads.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest gap is in passmark_directx_11, where the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 73 versus 35 for the RX 5500M, a 52.1% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Does the AMD card have any specification advantages?

A: Yes. The RX 5500M has more shading units (1,408 versus 1,280), more TMUs (88 versus 80), higher memory bandwidth (224.0 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s), higher FP32 compute (4.632 TFLOPS versus 4.416 TFLOPS), and a smaller 7 nm die at 158 mm² versus 284 mm².

Q: Why does the RX 5500M have a higher average benchmark score if it loses every head-to-head test?

A: The RX 5500M has an average benchmark score of 13,356, while the GTX 1650 SUPER averages 11,047. This is because each card is compared against different nearest rivals in the database, and the RX 5500M's closest competitors score around 13,300 to 13,400, while the GTX 1650 SUPER's closest rivals score around 10,800 to 11,100.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 5500M has a TDP of 85 W, while the GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W. The NVIDIA card draws 15 W more power but delivers significantly higher benchmark performance.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores.