GeForce GTX 1650 vs Tesla T4
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla T4 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
T4 outperforms GTX 1650 by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 267 | 329 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 23.34 |
| Power efficiency | 25.90 | 19.48 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 September 2018 (7 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2560 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 585 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 254.4 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.141 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 160 | 56 |
| Tensor Cores | 320 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 2.5 MB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 1024 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320.0 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 7.5 |
| DLSS | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 75−80
+23%
| 61
−23%
|
| 1440p | 45−50
+18.4%
| 38
−18.4%
|
| 4K | 27−30
+12.5%
| 24
−12.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.44 |
| 1440p | no data | 3.92 |
| 4K | no data | 6.21 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Palworld | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 211
+0%
|
211
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Palworld | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Valorant | 292
+0%
|
292
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Palworld | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260
+0%
|
260
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Palworld | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Valorant | 177
+0%
|
177
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Palworld | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Valorant | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Palworld | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how Tesla T4 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- Tesla T4 is 23% faster in 1080p
- Tesla T4 is 18% faster in 1440p
- Tesla T4 is 13% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 23.44 | 18.89 |
| Recency | 13 September 2018 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 75 Watt |
Tesla T4 has a 24% higher aggregate performance score, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 7% lower power consumption.
GTX 1650, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months.
The Tesla T4 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla T4 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
