GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile vs Quadro K2000

Place in performance ranking	652	257
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.32	18.34
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	GK107	N18P-G62
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	1 March 2013 (11 years ago)	2 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$599	no data
Current price	$550 (0.9x MSRP)	$892

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile has 5631% better value for money than Quadro K2000.

Detailed specifications

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 cores	384	1024
Core clock speed	954 MHz	1350 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1485 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	51 Watt	50 Watt (50 - 80 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	30.53	95.04
Floating-point performance	732.7 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro K2000 and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 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 size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	202 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	4000 MHz	12000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	64 GB/s	192.0 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

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

1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

No outputs

API compatibility

List of supported graphics 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	+	1.2.140
CUDA	3.0	7.5

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.

Quadro K2000 4.09

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 20.19
+394%

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile outperforms Quadro K2000 by 394% based on our aggregate 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%

Quadro K2000 1578

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 7796
+394%

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile outperforms Quadro K2000 by 394% in Passmark.

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	10−12 −480%	58 +480%
1440p	9−10 −422%	47 +422%
4K	4−5 −475%	23 +475%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11

−490%

59
+490%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −408%	61 +408%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10 −444%	49 +444%
Battlefield 5	12−14 −450%	65−70 +450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −430%	53 +430%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −411%	46 +411%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −475%	69 +475%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 −425%	84 +425%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −406%	90−95 +406%
Hitman 3	10−11 −410%	51 +410%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −448%	115 +448%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −406%	91 +406%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −450%	44 +450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 −428%	95 +428%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12−14 −400%	60 +400%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −411%	46 +411%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 −433%	32 +433%
Battlefield 5	12−14 −450%	65−70 +450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −422%	47 +422%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −414%	36 +414%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −480%	58 +480%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 −490%	59 +490%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −406%	90−95 +406%
Hitman 3	9−10 −400%	45 +400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 −414%	180 +414%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −467%	68 +467%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −425%	42 +425%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 −436%	75 +436%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −414%	72 +414%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −423%	183 +423%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −440%	27 +440%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 −400%	15 +400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −417%	31 +417%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −467%	34 +467%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −457%	39 +457%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −406%	90−95 +406%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −433%	64 +433%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −425%	63 +425%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −457%	39 +457%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 −450%	22 +450%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
−413%

+413%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −457%	35−40 +457%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 −400%	40−45 +400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −425%	21−24 +425%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 −533%	18−20 +533%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −420%	24−27 +420%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −433%	16 +433%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −467%	30−35 +467%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −457%	35−40 +457%
Hitman 3	5−6 −460%	28 +460%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −413%	40−45 +413%
Metro Exodus	7−8 −443%	35−40 +443%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −425%	40−45 +425%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −475%	21−24 +475%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
−450%

30−35

+450%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −400%	20−22 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −400%	20 +400%
Hitman 3	3−4 −433%	16 +433%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −475%	21−24 +475%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3−4 −500%	18 +500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −400%	25 +400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −450%	10−12 +450%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −500%	6 +500%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −500%	12 +500%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −460%	27−30 +460%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −475%	21−24 +475%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −533%	18−20 +533%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4
−500%

18−20

+500%

This is how Quadro K2000 and GTX 1650 Ti Mobile compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is 480% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is 422% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is 475% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.09	20.19
Recency	1 March 2013	2 April 2020
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	51 Watt	50 Watt