GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs Quadro K2200
Aggregated performance score
We've compared workstation GPU Quadro K2200 with laptop GPU GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q outperforms Quadro K2200 by an impressive 74% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 442 | 314 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.91 | 8.28 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | N18P-G0 / N18P-G61 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (9 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $395.75 | no data |
| Current price | $313 (0.8x MSRP) | $1185 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1650 Max-Q has 185% better value for money than Quadro K2200.
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 | 640 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1046 MHz | 1020 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | 1245 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 68 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 44.96 | 72.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,439 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro K2200 and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q 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 | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5, GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 112.1 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 | 5.0 | 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.
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q outperforms Quadro K2200 by 74% based on our aggregated 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%
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q outperforms Quadro K2200 by 74% 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 | 30−35
−100%
| 60
+100%
|
| 1440p | 16−18
−93.8%
| 31
+93.8%
|
| 4K | 10−12
−80%
| 18
+80%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.17 | 15.94 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 23 April 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 68 Watt | 35 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K2200 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
