Quadro FX 2700M vs GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

GTX 1650 SUPER
26.17
+2655%

GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms Quadro FX 2700M by 2655% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking1891076
Place by popularity50not in top-100
Value for money27.050.02
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2021)G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code nameTU116NB9E-GLM2
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date29 October 2019 (4 years old)14 August 2008 (15 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$99.95
Current price$206 $296 (3x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 SUPER has 135150% better value for money than FX 2700M.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores128048
Core clock speed1530 MHz530 MHz
Boost clock speed1725 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,600 million505 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)125 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate138.012.72
Floating-point performanceno data127.2 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and Quadro FX 2700M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-HE
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data

Memory

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 typeGDDR6GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed12000 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/s51.14 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+no data

Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Ready+no data
Multi Monitor+no data

API support

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.54.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA7.51.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 1650 SUPER 26.17
+2655%
FX 2700M 0.95

GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms Quadro FX 2700M by 2655% in our combined benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 1650 SUPER 10143
+2641%
FX 2700M 370

GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms Quadro FX 2700M by 2641% in Passmark.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 1650 SUPER 64463
+2203%
FX 2700M 2799

GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms Quadro FX 2700M by 2203% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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 HD72
+3500%
2−3
−3500%
1440p36
+3500%
1−2
−3500%
4K220−1

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 63
+2000%
3−4
−2000%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+5000%
1−2
−5000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 53
+5200%
1−2
−5200%
Battlefield 5 72
+3500%
2−3
−3500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70
+667%
9−10
−667%
Cyberpunk 2077 50
+1567%
3−4
−1567%
Far Cry 5 93
+3000%
3−4
−3000%
Far Cry New Dawn 89
+2867%
3−4
−2867%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+2800%
3−4
−2800%
Hitman 3 105 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 74 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 71
+2267%
3−4
−2267%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 85
+1317%
6−7
−1317%
Watch Dogs: Legion 71
+3450%
2−3
−3450%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+5000%
1−2
−5000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 26 0−1
Battlefield 5 58
+2800%
2−3
−2800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70
+667%
9−10
−667%
Cyberpunk 2077 40
+1233%
3−4
−1233%
Far Cry 5 86
+2767%
3−4
−2767%
Far Cry New Dawn 83
+2667%
3−4
−2667%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+2800%
3−4
−2800%
Hitman 3 83 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 58 0−1
Metro Exodus 51
+5000%
1−2
−5000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30
+900%
3−4
−900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 67
+1017%
6−7
−1017%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 90
+2900%
3−4
−2900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 61
+2950%
2−3
−2950%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+5000%
1−2
−5000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 15 0−1
Battlefield 5 57
+2750%
2−3
−2750%
Cyberpunk 2077 34
+1033%
3−4
−1033%
Far Cry 5 79
+3850%
2−3
−3850%
Far Cry New Dawn 76
+3700%
2−3
−3700%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+2800%
3−4
−2800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50
+1567%
3−4
−1567%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+1267%
3−4
−1267%
Hitman 3 51
+1600%
3−4
−1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 39
+388%
8−9
−388%
Metro Exodus 29
+2800%
1−2
−2800%
Red Dead Redemption 2 11 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40
+700%
5−6
−700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13 0−1
Battlefield 5 42
+4100%
1−2
−4100%
Cyberpunk 2077 20
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Far Cry 5 54
+5300%
1−2
−5300%
Far Cry New Dawn 55
+5400%
1−2
−5400%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+5300%
1−2
−5300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+3100%
1−2
−3100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14 0−1

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Hitman 3 25
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5
−60%
8−9
+60%
Metro Exodus 16 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 32
+3100%
1−2
−3100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5 0−1
Battlefield 5 24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3 0−1
Far Cry 5 24
+700%
3−4
−700%
Far Cry New Dawn 28
+460%
5−6
−460%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+3600%
1−2
−3600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8 0−1

This is how GTX 1650 SUPER and FX 2700M compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • GTX 1650 SUPER is 3500% faster than FX 2700M

1440p resolution:

  • GTX 1650 SUPER is 3500% faster than FX 2700M

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 SUPER is 5300% faster than the FX 2700M.
  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the FX 2700M is 60% faster than the GTX 1650 SUPER.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead in 24 tests (96%)
  • FX 2700M is ahead in 1 test (4%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 26.17 0.95
Recency 29 October 2019 14 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 125 Watt 65 Watt

The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is a desktop card while Quadro FX 2700M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2700M
Quadro FX 2700M

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 4062 votes

Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 9 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro FX 2700M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.