AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and the AMD Radeon RX 6500M represent two distinct approaches to graphics hardware, separated by process technology, target platform, and architectural generation. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a desktop Turing part from 2019, built on a 12 nm process with a 100 W TDP, while the RX 6500M is a mobile RDNA 2.0 chip from 2022, fabricated on a 6 nm node with a 50 W TDP. Despite the RX 6500M’s newer architecture and process advantage, the benchmark data shows the GTX 1650 SUPER winning 8 out of 9 head-to-head tests, with an average benchmark score of 11047 against the RX 6500M’s 10362. This places the NVIDIA card at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD card sits at the 48th percentile, indicating a narrow but consistent overall performance gap.

Where Each One Wins

The data reveals a clear division of strengths: the GTX 1650 SUPER dominates in legacy DirectX workloads and compute, while the RX 6500M’s only win comes in a specific DirectX 10 test. In the head-to-head results, the GTX 1650 SUPER takes the PassMark DirectX 9 test with a score of 148 versus 92, a 60.9% advantage. This pattern continues with DirectX 12, where the NVIDIA card scores 45 against 34, a 32.4% lead, and DirectX 11, where it wins 73 to 70, a 4.3% margin. The RX 6500M’s sole victory is in PassMark DirectX 10, scoring 52 against the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 50, a 3.8% difference. This suggests the AMD card has a slight edge in that specific API path, but it is an isolated result.

For compute and general-purpose workloads, the GTX 1650 SUPER is decisively ahead. The PassMark GPU Compute test shows a 67.7% lead (4477 vs 2669), and the Geekbench OpenCL score is 43875 versus 38586, a 13.7% advantage. The 2D performance gap is even more pronounced: the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 749 in PassMark G2D against the RX 6500M’s 385, a 94.5% difference. This indicates that the NVIDIA card is not just faster in raw 3D rendering but also in memory-bound and desktop composition tasks. The RX 6500M’s architecture, with a 64-bit memory bus, appears to handicap it severely in these scenarios, despite its higher boost clock of 2400 MHz versus the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 1725 MHz.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses the TU116 chip, based on NVIDIA’s Turing architecture, manufactured on TSMC’s 12 nm process. It integrates 6,600 million transistors on a die size of 284 mm², yielding a transistor density of 23.2M / mm². The RX 6500M, in contrast, uses the Navi 24 chip with AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture, on a 6 nm process from the same foundry. This smaller chip packs 5,400 million transistors into just 107 mm², achieving a much higher density of 50.5M / mm². The process advantage is clear: AMD packs nearly the same transistor count into less than half the die area.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a 128-bit memory bus with a bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s, while the RX 6500M is limited to a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both have 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, but the effective memory speed differs: 12 Gbps on the NVIDIA card versus 18 Gbps on the AMD card. The higher per-pin speed on the RX 6500M partially compensates for the narrower bus, but the total bandwidth deficit remains 48 GB/s. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has more shading units (1280 vs 1024), more texture mapping units (80 vs 64), and the same 32 ROPs. Interestingly, the RX 6500M features 16 ray tracing cores, a capability the GTX 1650 SUPER lacks entirely, as Turing’s RT cores were reserved for higher-tier RTX models.

Compute throughput tells a mixed story. The RX 6500M has a higher FP32 rating at 4.915 TFLOPS versus 4.416 TFLOPS, and a correspondingly higher FP16 rating at 9.830 TFLOPS versus 8.832 TFLOPS. This means the AMD card has more raw shader compute capacity. However, the GTX 1650 SUPER compensates with higher texture and pixel rates? No, the RX 6500M wins there too: 153.6 GTexel/s versus 138.0 GTexel/s, and 76.80 GPixel/s versus 55.20 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA card’s benchmark wins therefore cannot be attributed to raw throughput; instead, they likely stem from the wider memory bus, superior driver optimization for legacy APIs, and the PCIe interface difference. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 6500M uses PCIe 4.0 x4, which has the same total bandwidth but may suffer from latency in certain workloads.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the faster GPU in nearly every measurable category. Its average benchmark score of 11047 is 6.6% higher than the RX 6500M’s 10362, and it wins 8 of 9 head-to-head tests. The largest deltas are in favor of NVIDIA: 94.5% in PassMark G2D, 67.7% in GPU Compute, and 60.9% in DirectX 9. Even in modern APIs like DirectX 12, the GTX 1650 SUPER leads by 32.4%. The RX 6500M’s sole victory in DirectX 10 is statistically minor and does not indicate any broader trend. The data suggests the GTX 1650 SUPER is the better choice for users prioritizing compatibility, compute, and legacy game performance. The RX 6500M, despite its newer architecture and higher clocks, is held back by its narrow memory bus and lower transistor count. For a mobile GPU, its 50 W TDP and IGP form factor are notable advantages, but the performance data does not favor it. Users who need a discrete desktop card with robust driver support and consistent wins across API generations should choose the GTX 1650 SUPER. Users constrained by laptop power budgets might consider the RX 6500M, but the benchmark results show they would sacrifice significant performance in compute and 2D tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11047, while the AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 10362, a difference of 6.6% in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark delta between the two cards?

A: The largest delta is in the PassMark G2D test, where the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 749 versus the RX 6500M’s 385, a 94.5% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Does the RX 6500M win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the RX 6500M wins only one head-to-head test: PassMark DirectX 10, where it scores 52 against the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 50, a 3.8% margin.

Q: How do their memory buses compare?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a 128-bit memory bus, while the RX 6500M has a 64-bit bus. This results in 192.0 GB/s bandwidth for NVIDIA versus 144.0 GB/s for AMD.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1280 shading units, while the RX 6500M has 1024 shading units, a difference of 256 units.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER is built on a 12 nm process, while the RX 6500M uses a 6 nm process. The AMD chip has a higher transistor density of 50.5M / mm² versus 23.2M / mm² for NVIDIA.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head data is the PassMark G2D test, where the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 749 against the RX 6500M’s 385, a 94.5% lead. This near-doubling of 2D performance is likely attributable to the NVIDIA card’s wider memory bus and higher memory bandwidth, which directly impacts desktop rendering and texture uploads. The PassMark GPU Compute test shows a similar story: 4477 versus 2669, a 67.7% advantage. This suggests the GTX 1650 SUPER is significantly better at general-purpose GPGPU tasks, despite the RX 6500M having a higher theoretical FP32 throughput of 4.915 TFLOPS versus 4.416 TFLOPS. The benchmark results indicate that raw compute ratings do not translate to real-world compute wins here.

In legacy API tests, the GTX 1650 SUPER is dominant. The DirectX 9 test shows a 60.9% lead (148 vs 92), and the DirectX 12 test shows a 32.4% lead (45 vs 34). The DirectX 11 margin is narrower at 4.3% (73 vs 70), but still a win. The only AMD victory is in DirectX 10, with a 3.8% difference (52 vs 50), which is within the margin of test variance and does not represent a meaningful advantage. In the compute-oriented Geekbench tests, the GTX 1650 SUPER leads by 13.7% in OpenCL (43875 vs 38586) and 15.2% in Vulkan (50519 vs 43837). These results are consistent: the NVIDIA card wins every test that stresses memory bandwidth or driver maturity, while the AMD card’s higher clock speeds and newer architecture cannot overcome its hardware limitations. The overall score distribution, with the GTX 1650 SUPER at the 50th percentile and the RX 6500M at the 48th, confirms that this is a close but consistently favorable matchup for NVIDIA.