In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano 8GB are significantly better than the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650 Ultra.

The RX Vega has a 90 MHz higher core clock speed and 200 more Texture Mapping Units than the GTX 1650. This results in the RX Vega providing 305 GTexel/s better texturing performance. This still holds weight but shader performance is generally more relevant, particularly since both of these GPUs support at least DirectX 10.

The RX Vega has a 90 MHz higher core clock speed and 32 more Render Output Units than the GTX 1650. This results in the RX Vega providing 50.9 GPixel/s better pixeling performance. However, both GPUs support DirectX 9 or above, and pixeling performance is only really relevant when comparing older cards.

The GTX 1650 was released over a year more recently than the RX Vega, and so the GTX 1650 is likely to have better driver support, meaning it will be more optimized for running the latest games when compared to the RX Vega.

Both GPUs exhibit very powerful performance, so it probably isn't worth upgrading from one to the other, as both are capable of running even the most demanding games at the highest settings.

The RX Vega has 4096 MB more video memory than the GTX 1650, so is likely to be much better at displaying game textures at higher resolutions. However, overall, the GTX 1650 has superior memory performance.

The GTX 1650 has 0.3 GB/sec greater memory bandwidth than the RX Vega, which means that the memory performance of the GTX 1650 is marginally better than the RX Vega.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ultra has 896 Shader Processing Units and the Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano 8GB has 4096. However, the actual shader performance of the GTX 1650 is 1425 and the actual shader performance of the RX Vega is 3994. The RX Vega having 2569 better shader performance and an altogether better performance when taking into account other relevant data means that the RX Vega delivers a massively smoother and more efficient experience when processing graphical data than the GTX 1650.

The GTX 1650 transistor size technology is 2 nm (nanometers) smaller than the RX Vega. This means that the GTX 1650 is expected to run very slightly cooler and achieve higher clock frequencies than the RX Vega.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ultra requires 90 Watts to run and the Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano 8GB requires 200 Watts. We would recommend a PSU with at least 400 Watts for the GTX 1650 and a PSU with at least 600 Watts for the RX Vega. The RX Vega requires 110 Watts more than the GTX 1650 to run. The difference is significant enough that the RX Vega may have an adverse affect on your yearly electricity bills in comparison to the GTX 1650.