FirePro D500 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile with FirePro D500, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 Mobile outperforms D500 by an impressive 73% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 312 | 440 |
| Place by popularity | 51 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 25.36 | 2.68 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 April 2020 (4 years ago) | 18 January 2014 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1380 MHz | 725 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 274 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 99.84 | 69.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.195 TFLOPS | 2.227 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 96 |
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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 279 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
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 | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1270 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 243.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
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 Connectors | No outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDI |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.140 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
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 | 58
+93.3%
| 30−35
−93.3%
|
| 1440p | 37
+76.2%
| 21−24
−76.2%
|
| 4K | 24
+100%
| 12−14
−100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 69
+97.1%
|
35−40
−97.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 131
+74.7%
|
75−80
−74.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+73.3%
|
30−33
−73.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 51
+88.9%
|
27−30
−88.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+100%
|
30−33
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 113
+73.8%
|
65−70
−73.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+100%
|
30−33
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+88%
|
50−55
−88%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82
+82.2%
|
45−50
−82.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 68
+94.3%
|
35−40
−94.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+85.7%
|
35−40
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 164
+82.2%
|
90−95
−82.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+100%
|
30−33
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 67
+91.4%
|
35−40
−91.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130
+73.3%
|
75−80
−73.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 96
+74.5%
|
55−60
−74.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 54
+80%
|
30−33
−80%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+88%
|
50−55
−88%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
+77.8%
|
45−50
−77.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+100%
|
30−33
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 59
+96.7%
|
30−33
−96.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+85.7%
|
35−40
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 62
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
| Valorant | 148
+74.1%
|
85−90
−74.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+96.7%
|
30−33
−96.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 89
+78%
|
50−55
−78%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+76.7%
|
30−33
−76.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 62
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 71
+77.5%
|
40−45
−77.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+100%
|
18−20
−100%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+78.7%
|
75−80
−78.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 72
+80%
|
40−45
−80%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+81.4%
|
70−75
−81.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+82.2%
|
90−95
−82.2%
|
| Valorant | 159
+76.7%
|
90−95
−76.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+74.1%
|
27−30
−74.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 44
+83.3%
|
24−27
−83.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Valorant | 90
+80%
|
50−55
−80%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 25
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 45
+87.5%
|
24−27
−87.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
This is how GTX 1650 Mobile and FirePro D500 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 93% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 76% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 Mobile is 100% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.91 | 9.21 |
| Recency | 15 April 2020 | 18 January 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 274 Watt |
GTX 1650 Mobile has a 72.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 448% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro D500 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is a notebook card while FirePro D500 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
