GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs Quadro FX 5500

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 5500 with GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

FX 5500
2006
1 GB GDDR3, 96 Watt
0.54

GTX 1650 Max-Q outperforms FX 5500 by a whopping 2481% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1214349
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.4536.88
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameG71TU117
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date20 April 2006 (18 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 coresno data1024
Core clock speed650 MHz930 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1125 MHz
Number of transistors278 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)96 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate15.6072.00
Floating-point processing powerno data2.304 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs2464

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed505 MHz1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth32.32 GB/s112.1 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 (12_1)
Shader Model3.06.5
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.140
CUDA-7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

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.

FX 5500 0.54
GTX 1650 Max-Q 13.94
+2481%

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.

FX 5500 242
GTX 1650 Max-Q 6227
+2473%

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 HD2−3
−2900%
60
+2900%
1440p1−2
−2900%
30
+2900%
4K0−118

Cost per frame, $

1080p1499.50no data
1440p2999.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 64
+0%
64
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 38
+0%
38
+0%
Fortnite 138
+0%
138
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 74
+0%
74
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85
+0%
85
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 54
+0%
54
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 167
+0%
167
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 94
+0%
94
+0%
Far Cry 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Fortnite 80
+0%
80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 69
+0%
69
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 56
+0%
56
+0%
Metro Exodus 28
+0%
28
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 71
+0%
71
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 53
+0%
53
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 49
+0%
49
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 88
+0%
88
+0%
Far Cry 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55
+0%
55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 53
+0%
53
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+0%
30
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 59
+0%
59
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 16
+0%
16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 36
+0%
36
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 36
+0%
36
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 10
+0%
10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+0%
18
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 17
+0%
17
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 11
+0%
11
+0%

This is how FX 5500 and GTX 1650 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 2900% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 2900% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.54 13.94
Recency 20 April 2006 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 96 Watt 30 Watt

GTX 1650 Max-Q has a 2481.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 650% more advanced lithography process, and 220% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 5500 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 5500 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

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


NVIDIA Quadro FX 5500
Quadro FX 5500
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


4 4 votes

Rate Quadro FX 5500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 672 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 5500 or GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.