GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile vs Quadro M3000M

Place in performance ranking	339	257
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation	2.29	18.08
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2018)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	GM204	N18P-G62
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	2 October 2015 (8 years ago)	2 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Current price	$981	$892

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile has 690% better value for money than M3000M.

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	1,024	1024
Core clock speed	1050 MHz	1350 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1485 MHz
Number of transistors	5,200 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	50 Watt (50 - 80 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	67.20	95.04
Floating-point performance	2,150 gflops	no data

Form Factor & Compatibility

Information on Quadro M3000M and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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	large	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

Memory type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	5000 MHz	12000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160 GB/s	192.0 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	No outputs
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus	+	no data
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API Compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.0	6.5
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.140
CUDA	5.2	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.

M3000M 14.28

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 20.14
+41%

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile outperforms Quadro M3000M by 41% 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%

M3000M 5526

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 7796
+41.1%

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile outperforms Quadro M3000M by 41% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

M3000M 27405

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 43517
+58.8%

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile outperforms Quadro M3000M by 59% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

M3000M 8289

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 13266
+60.1%

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile outperforms Quadro M3000M by 60% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

M3000M 6537

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 9930
+51.9%

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile outperforms Quadro M3000M by 52% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

M3000M 44603

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 65163
+46.1%

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile outperforms Quadro M3000M by 46% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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	60 +1.7%	59 −1.7%
1440p	30−35 −46.7%	44 +46.7%
4K	25 +4.2%	24 −4.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

21−24

−168%

59
+168%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−33 −103%	61 +103%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 −104%	49 +104%
Battlefield 5	45−50 −71.4%	84 +71.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 −91.9%	71 +91.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −109%	46 +109%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −81.1%	67 +81.1%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 −69.2%	66 +69.2%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −38%	65−70 +38%
Hitman 3	35−40 −113%	83 +113%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 −107%	62 +107%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −125%	54 +125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 −117%	65 +117%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −122%	60 +122%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−33 −53.3%	46 +53.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 −33.3%	32 +33.3%
Battlefield 5	45−50 −49%	73 +49%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 −56.8%	58 +56.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −63.6%	36 +63.6%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −67.6%	62 +67.6%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 −59%	62 +59%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −38%	65−70 +38%
Hitman 3	35−40 −71.8%	67 +71.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 −56.7%	47 +56.7%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −72.7%	38 +72.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 −20.8%	29 +20.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 −76.7%	53 +76.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	42 −71.4%	72 +71.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −92.6%	52 +92.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−33 +11.1%	27 −11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +60%	15 −60%
Battlefield 5	45−50 −36.7%	67 +36.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −54.5%	34 +54.5%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −56.8%	58 +56.8%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 −46.2%	57 +46.2%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −38%	65−70 +38%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	22 −77.3%	39 +77.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +22.7%	22 −22.7%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 −76.2%	37 +76.2%
Hitman 3	21−24 −77.3%	39 +77.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −35%	27−30 +35%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −46.2%	18−20 +46.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −70%	17 +70%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 −77.8%	32 +77.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 −46.7%	21−24 +46.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 −72.7%	18−20 +72.7%
Battlefield 5	27−30 −75.9%	51 +75.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −129%	16 +129%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −47.8%	30−35 +47.8%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 −50%	35−40 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −46.4%	40−45 +46.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −57.1%	21−24 +57.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 −55.6%	14−16 +55.6%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −90%	19 +90%
Hitman 3	12−14 −61.5%	21 +61.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −30%	12−14 +30%
Metro Exodus	7−8 −71.4%	12−14 +71.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −37.5%	10−12 +37.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −125%	18 +125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 −78.6%	25 +78.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −50%	12−14 +50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%
Battlefield 5	14−16 −86.7%	28 +86.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −200%	6 +200%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −45.5%	16−18 +45.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 −35.7%	18−20 +35.7%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −40%	27−30 +40%
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 −80%	9−10 +80%

This is how M3000M and GTX 1650 Ti Mobile compete in popular games:

M3000M is 1.7% faster than GTX 1650 Ti Mobile in 1080p
GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is 46.7% faster than M3000M in 1440p
M3000M is 4.2% faster than GTX 1650 Ti Mobile in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M3000M is 60% faster than the GTX 1650 Ti Mobile.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is 200% faster than the M3000M.

All in all, in popular games: