GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro K1000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K1000M with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 outperforms K1000M by a whopping 918% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 902 | 281 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.54 | 37.54 |
| Power efficiency | 3.07 | 18.74 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $119.90 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1650 has 6852% better value for money than K1000M.
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 | 192 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.60 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3264 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 56 |
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 | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 128.0 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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.
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 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & 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:
| 900p | 9
−900%
| 90−95
+900%
|
| Full HD | 18
−283%
| 69
+283%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−925%
| 41
+925%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−1150%
| 25
+1150%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.66
−208%
| 2.16
+208%
|
| 1440p | 29.98
−725%
| 3.63
+725%
|
| 4K | 59.95
−906%
| 5.96
+906%
|
- GTX 1650 has 208% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1650 has 725% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1650 has 906% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−920%
|
50−55
+920%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−350%
|
35−40
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−925%
|
40−45
+925%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−920%
|
50−55
+920%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−1120%
|
61
+1120%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−350%
|
35−40
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−925%
|
40−45
+925%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3350%
|
69
+3350%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−2538%
|
211
+2538%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−800%
|
90
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−2900%
|
60
+2900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−718%
|
90
+718%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−649%
|
292
+649%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−920%
|
50−55
+920%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−960%
|
53
+960%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−350%
|
35−40
+350%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−492%
|
230−240
+492%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−925%
|
40−45
+925%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−362%
|
97
+362%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3050%
|
63
+3050%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−963%
|
85
+963%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−730%
|
83
+730%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−2600%
|
50−55
+2600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−1925%
|
81
+1925%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1067%
|
35
+1067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−682%
|
86
+682%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−914%
|
71
+914%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−567%
|
260
+567%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−920%
|
51
+920%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−350%
|
35−40
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−925%
|
40−45
+925%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−338%
|
92
+338%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2850%
|
59
+2850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−550%
|
65
+550%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−1950%
|
41
+1950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−500%
|
66
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−486%
|
41
+486%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−79.5%
|
70
+79.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
−663%
|
61
+663%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−900%
|
20−22
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−969%
|
130−140
+969%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 40 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1223%
|
170−180
+1223%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−1164%
|
177
+1164%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1233%
|
40
+1233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1050%
|
46
+1050%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−933%
|
31
+933%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1300%
|
42
+1300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−120%
|
33
+120%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−730%
|
83
+730%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| Dota 2 | 4−5
−1375%
|
59
+1375%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−850%
|
19
+850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−767%
|
26
+767%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−267%
|
11
+267%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how K1000M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 900% faster in 900p
- GTX 1650 is 283% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 925% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 1150% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 is 3400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 56 tests (86%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (14%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.99 | 20.25 |
| Recency | 1 June 2012 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 75 Watt |
K1000M has 66.7% lower power consumption.
GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 917.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K1000M is a mobile workstation 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.
