AMD Radeon Vega 8 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER than the AMD Radeon Vega 8 in OpenCL workloads?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Vega 8 scores 8,822. That is a 397.3% advantage for the NVIDIA card, representing roughly five times the compute output in this test.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11,047, placing it in the 50th percentile of all GPUs. The Vega 8 averages 9,221, which puts it in the 45th percentile. The difference is about 19.8% in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the GTX 1650 SUPER according to the database?

A: The nearest competitors are the AMD Radeon RX 550 (average score 11,075, which is 0.2% higher), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (both 11,088, 0.4% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10,883, 1.5% lower).

Q: Where does the Vega 8 sit relative to its nearest rivals?

A: The Vega 8 is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon 890M (0.1% higher for the 890M), and it trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 by 0.6%, the GTX 465 by 0.8%, and the GTX 850M by 0.9%. The spread among its rivals is very narrow.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX and OpenGL versions?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. They differ in Vulkan support: the GTX 1650 SUPER supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega 8 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the release timeline for these two products?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 was released on February 11, 2018. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER came later, on November 21, 2019. Both are listed as end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the GTX 1650 SUPER is the dominant performer in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 397.3%, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it leads by 521.1%. The average benchmark scores reinforce this, with the NVIDIA card at 11,047 versus 9,221 for the AMD part. If you need discrete graphics performance, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the obvious choice.

However, the Vega 8 is not without its place. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 25 W TDP, meaning it draws no separate power and fits into systems without a dedicated GPU slot. The GTX 1650 SUPER, by contrast, is a dual-slot card requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. For a compact office build or a low-power HTPC where gaming is secondary, the Vega 8's simplicity wins. For anyone who wants playable frame rates in modern titles, the GTX 1650 SUPER's numbers leave no room for debate.

The GTX 1650 SUPER also holds a percentile advantage (50th versus 45th), but the gap in raw compute is far larger than that percentile difference suggests. The Vega 8's closest rivals are all within 1% of its score, which indicates it is a very average integrated solution. The GTX 1650 SUPER sits near the middle of the GPU pack, and its nearest rivals include the RX 550 and MX350, which are both entry-level discrete cards.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head tests, and the GTX 1650 SUPER wins both decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 against the Vega 8's 8,822. That is a delta of 397.3%. This test stresses general-purpose compute, and the NVIDIA card's 1,280 shading units versus the Vega 8's 512 explain much of the gap. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has 80 texture mapping units and 32 ROPs, compared to 32 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the Vega 8. The result is a compute score that is nearly five times higher.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin grows even larger. The GTX 1650 SUPER posts 50,519, while the Vega 8 manages 8,134. That is a 521.1% lead. Vulkan is a low-level API that rewards raw hardware throughput, and the NVIDIA card's dedicated GDDR6 memory with 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus the Vega 8's system-shared memory gives it a massive advantage in memory-bound workloads. The Vega 8's bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent," which means it relies on the host system's memory configuration, a variable that can hurt performance in practice.

Between the two tests, the GTX 1650 SUPER wins 2 out of 2. There are no benchmark categories where the Vega 8 comes out ahead. The average benchmark score of 11,047 for the NVIDIA card versus 9,221 for the AMD part further confirms the trend, though the average includes additional tests like Passmark and 3DMark that are not directly comparable here.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in almost every measurable specification. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 8 has no dedicated memory; it uses "System Shared" memory with "System Dependent" bandwidth. This is the single most important difference for gaming, as dedicated VRAM avoids the latency and contention of shared memory.

Clock speeds also diverge sharply. The GTX 1650 SUPER runs at a base clock of 1530 MHz and boosts to 1725 MHz. The Vega 8 has a base clock of 300 MHz and boosts to 1100 MHz. Even before accounting for the difference in shader count, the NVIDIA card operates at a much higher frequency.

The memory clock tells a similar story: the GTX 1650 SUPER runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective, while the Vega 8 has no dedicated memory clock at all.

Shading units: 1,280 on the GTX 1650 SUPER versus 512 on the Vega 8. TMUs: 80 versus 32. ROPs: 32 versus 8. Pixel rate: 55.20 GPixel/s versus 8.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 138.0 GTexel/s versus 35.20 GTexel/s. FP32 performance: 4.416 TFLOPS versus 1,126.4 GFLOPS. Every one of these metrics favors the NVIDIA card by a wide margin.

Power and physical requirements also differ. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a 100 W TDP, is dual-slot, measures 229 mm in length, and needs one 6-pin power connector plus a 300 W suggested PSU. The Vega 8 is an IGP with a 25 W TDP, no power connectors, no dimensions, and no PSU requirement. The Vega 8's display outputs are "Motherboard Dependent," while the GTX 1650 SUPER offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 1650 SUPER is built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The chip is called TU116, contains 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, and has a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². It belongs to the GeForce 16 generation and the GeForce 10-series family. Its predecessor is GeForce 10 and its successor is GeForce 20.

The Vega 8 uses AMD's GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The chip is codenamed Raven, contains 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, and has a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². It belongs to the Vega IGP (Raven Ridge) generation. Its predecessor is GCN 3.0 IGP and its successor is Vega II IGP.

The process node difference (12 nm versus 14 nm) is modest, but the transistor counts reveal the scale: the NVIDIA chip packs 33.6% more transistors into a 35.2% larger die. Both achieve similar transistor densities, around 23M per mm², which suggests the architectures are comparable in how tightly they pack logic.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega 8 supports Vulkan 1.3. FP16 performance is listed as 2:1 for both: the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 8.832 TFLOPS FP16, and the Vega 8 delivers 2.253 TFLOPS FP16.

The Vega 8's integrated nature means it shares the die with CPU cores in a Raven Ridge APU, which explains its much lower power envelope and lack of discrete memory. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a standalone GPU with its own VRAM and cooling solution.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 SUPER wins in every scenario that requires sustained graphics throughput. Its dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 memory with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth means texture-heavy games and high-resolution assets load without stutter. Its 4.416 TFLOPS of FP32 compute handles modern game engines comfortably. The 55.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 138.0 GTexel/s texture rate are more than triple the Vega 8's figures, which translates to higher frame rates at any given settings.

The Vega 8 wins in scenarios where power draw and system simplicity matter more than raw performance. At 25 W, it consumes a quarter of the GTX 1650 SUPER's 100 W TDP. It requires no power connector, no PCIe slot, and no additional cooling. For a slim desktop or a low-power server that needs basic 2D acceleration or video playback, the Vega 8 is the more practical choice. Its "System Shared" memory means it can flexibly use whatever RAM is available, though this also caps its performance ceiling.

In Vulkan workloads, the GTX 1650 SUPER's 521.1% lead shows how much the dedicated memory and higher clock speeds matter in modern APIs. In OpenCL, the 397.3% lead confirms that compute tasks, such as rendering or machine learning inference, are firmly in the NVIDIA card's territory.

For gaming, the choice is unambiguous. The GTX 1650 SUPER's average benchmark score of 11,047 places it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 8's 9,221 sits at the 45th percentile. But the head-to-head tests show the real gap is much larger than the percentiles suggest. The Vega 8 is a capable IGP for office work and light media consumption. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a real graphics card for real gaming. Pick accordingly.