AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile occupy very different corners of the graphics hardware landscape. The GTX 1650 is a discrete, dual-slot expansion card built for desktop systems, while the Vega 8 Mobile is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) designed to share system memory inside a portable device. The data shows a decisive performance gap, with the GTX 1650 winning both shared benchmark tests by significant margins, yet the Vega 8 Mobile’s role as a low-power IGP means the comparison is less about direct competition and more about understanding what each part is optimized to accomplish.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins every single head-to-head test available in the data. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 scores 29,629 against the Vega 8 Mobile’s 7,435, a delta of 298.5%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 1650 scores 33,042 against 6,970, a delta of 374.1%. This is not a close contest by any measure; the discrete card is in a different performance class entirely.

However, the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile “wins” in the context of its intended deployment. Its 25 W TDP is one-third of the GTX 1650’s 75 W TDP, and it requires no separate power connectors, no expansion slot, and no suggested PSU rating. The Vega 8 Mobile is a system-on-chip component, with a bus interface listed as IGP and display outputs that are portable-device dependent. Its victory is in power efficiency and physical integration, not in raw compute. For a thin-and-light laptop where battery life and thermals are paramount, the Vega 8 Mobile is the only viable option of the two; the GTX 1650’s 229 mm length, 111 mm height, and 35 mm width make it physically incompatible with such a device.

The wins break down by use case. For gaming, 3D rendering, or any GPU-accelerated workload where performance is king, the GTX 1650 is the clear winner. For ultra-portable computing where the GPU must be embedded into the CPU package and draw minimal power, the Vega 8 Mobile is the winner by default, as the GTX 1650 cannot be installed in such a form factor.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is built on the Turing architecture, using the TU117 chip, and is manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M / mm². The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile, in contrast, uses the GCN 5.0 architecture with the Raven-M chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 4,940 million transistors on a slightly larger 210 mm² die, also achieving a transistor density of 23.5M / mm².

The core configurations diverge sharply. The GTX 1650 features 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The Vega 8 Mobile is much more sparsely equipped, with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. Neither chip has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so the architectural difference is purely in the classic rasterization pipeline and compute throughput.

The memory architecture is another major distinction. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 8 Mobile has no dedicated memory; it uses System Shared memory, with a bus width of System Shared and bandwidth that is System Dependent. This means the Vega 8 Mobile’s memory performance is entirely contingent on the host system’s RAM and memory controller, whereas the GTX 1650 has a fixed, guaranteed bandwidth.

Clock speeds also tell a story. The GTX 1650 has a base clock of 1485 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The Vega 8 Mobile has a much lower base clock of 300 MHz, but boosts to 1101 MHz. The low base clock suggests aggressive power-saving behavior when idle, while the boost clock still trails the GTX 1650’s base clock by a wide margin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks in the data are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Both show overwhelming NVIDIA wins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 posts 29,629 points versus the Vega 8 Mobile’s 7,435 points. The delta of 298.5% means the GTX 1650 is nearly four times faster in this compute-oriented test. This is consistent with the theoretical FP32 throughput: the GTX 1650 is rated at 2.984 TFLOPS, while the Vega 8 Mobile is rated at 1,127.4 GFLOPS (approximately 1.13 TFLOPS). The GTX 1650 also has a much higher texture rate (93.24 GTexel/s vs 35.23 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (53.28 GPixel/s vs 8.808 GPixel/s), which explains why the OpenCL gap is so large.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further. The GTX 1650 scores 33,042 against 6,970, a delta of 374.1%. The Vulkan test likely stresses the geometry and rasterization pipelines more heavily, where the GTX 1650’s 56 TMUs and 32 ROPs dwarf the Vega 8 Mobile’s 32 TMUs and 8 ROPs. The GTX 1650’s boost clock of 1665 MHz also provides a substantial frequency advantage over the Vega 8 Mobile’s 1101 MHz boost.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the hierarchy. The GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7,472, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. The Vega 8 Mobile averages 7,203, placing it in the 39th percentile. This is a surprisingly narrow overall margin, but it is important to note that the average score includes many more tests than the two head-to-head comparisons; the GTX 1650 has additional Passmark scores (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute) that the Vega 8 Mobile lacks.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets highlight several key differences beyond the obvious performance gap.

• Process Node: The GTX 1650 uses 12 nm (TSMC); the Vega 8 Mobile uses 14 nm (GlobalFoundries).
• Transistors: The GTX 1650 has 4,700 million; the Vega 8 Mobile has 4,940 million.
• Die Size: The GTX 1650 is 200 mm²; the Vega 8 Mobile is 210 mm².
• Base Clock: The GTX 1650 is 1485 MHz; the Vega 8 Mobile is 300 MHz.
• Boost Clock: The GTX 1650 is 1665 MHz; the Vega 8 Mobile is 1101 MHz.
• Memory: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth; the Vega 8 Mobile uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.
• Shading Units: The GTX 1650 has 896; the Vega 8 Mobile has 512.
• TMUs: The GTX 1650 has 56; the Vega 8 Mobile has 32.
• ROPs: The GTX 1650 has 32; the Vega 8 Mobile has 8.
• Pixel Rate: The GTX 1650 is 53.28 GPixel/s; the Vega 8 Mobile is 8.808 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: The GTX 1650 is 93.24 GTexel/s; the Vega 8 Mobile is 35.23 GTexel/s.
• FP32: The GTX 1650 is 2.984 TFLOPS; the Vega 8 Mobile is 1,127.4 GFLOPS.
• FP16: The GTX 1650 is 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1); the Vega 8 Mobile is 2.255 TFLOPS (2:1).
• TDP: The GTX 1650 is 75 W; the Vega 8 Mobile is 25 W.
• Slot Width: The GTX 1650 is Dual-slot; the Vega 8 Mobile is IGP.
• Power Connectors: The GTX 1650 has None; the Vega 8 Mobile has None.
• Suggested PSU: The GTX 1650 is 250 W; the Vega 8 Mobile has no listed value.
• Bus Interface: The GTX 1650 is PCIe 3.0 x16; the Vega 8 Mobile is IGP.
• Display Outputs: The GTX 1650 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a; the Vega 8 Mobile is Portable Device Dependent.
• Dimensions: The GTX 1650 is 229 mm x 111 mm x 35 mm; the Vega 8 Mobile has no listed dimensions.
• Vulkan Support: The GTX 1650 supports Vulkan 1.4; the Vega 8 Mobile supports Vulkan 1.3.
• Release Date: The GTX 1650 launched 2019-04-22; the Vega 8 Mobile launched 2019-01-07.
• Launch MSRP: The GTX 1650 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD; the Vega 8 Mobile has no MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 scores 29,629, which is 298.5% higher than the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile’s 7,435.

Q: How much larger is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 1650 scores 33,042 versus 6,970 for the Vega 8 Mobile, a delta of 374.1%.

Q: Does the Vega 8 Mobile have any advantage in power consumption?

A: Yes. The Vega 8 Mobile has a 25 W TDP, compared to the GTX 1650’s 75 W TDP, making it far more suitable for battery-powered devices.

Q: Can the Vega 8 Mobile use dedicated graphics memory?

A: No. The Vega 8 Mobile uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, whereas the GTX 1650 has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, while the Vega 8 Mobile has 512.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life?

A: Yes. Both the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile are listed with a production status of End-of-life.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward choice for anyone deciding between these two. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is categorically superior in raw performance, winning both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 298.5% and 374.1%. Its dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 memory, 128.1 GB/s bandwidth, 896 shading units, and 2.984 TFLOPS of FP32 compute make it the only option for gaming, 3D rendering, or GPU compute workloads. Its nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Arc A310 (with a -1% delta) and the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (with a 0.3% delta), confirming it sits in a specific performance tier well above any integrated solution.

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile, by contrast, is not designed to compete on performance. Its 25 W TDP, IGP bus interface, and System Shared memory are the defining characteristics. It is a component for portable devices where the GPU must be embedded into the CPU package and share system resources. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (with a -0.3% delta) and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (with a 0.5% delta), showing that its average score of 7,203 is competitive with older low-end discrete cards, but it cannot match the GTX 1650’s 7,472 average.

The verdict is simple: pick the GTX 1650 if you need a discrete graphics card for a desktop system with a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot and room for a 229 mm dual-slot card. Pick the Vega 8 Mobile if you are building or buying a portable device where the GPU must be integrated into the system on a chip, draw no more than 25 W, and use shared memory. The GTX 1650 wins on every benchmark metric, but the Vega 8 Mobile wins on integration and power efficiency. There is no overlap in their intended use cases, and the data shows they should not be cross-shopped.