GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro M4000M

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M4000M with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.

M4000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
13.74

GTX 1650 outperforms M4000M by a significant 28% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking353285
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data34.58
Power efficiency10.9318.70
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGM204TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

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 cores1,280896
Core clock speed975 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speed1013 MHz1665 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate78.0093.24
Floating-point processing power2.496 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs8056

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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

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

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA5.27.5

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.

M4000M 13.74
GTX 1650 17.63
+28.3%

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.

M4000M 6140
GTX 1650 7880
+28.3%

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.

M4000M 10259
GTX 1650 13645
+33%

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.

M4000M 7723
GTX 1650 9203
+19.2%

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.

M4000M 49204
GTX 1650 50549
+2.7%

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.

M4000M 19918
GTX 1650 39126
+96.4%

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.

M4000M 21133
GTX 1650 35920
+70%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

M4000M 56
GTX 1650 91
+63.8%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

M4000M 89
+95.2%
GTX 1650 45

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

M4000M 110
+1617%
GTX 1650 6

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

M4000M 80
+82.6%
GTX 1650 44

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

M4000M 68
+96.6%
GTX 1650 35

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

M4000M 27
+27.1%
GTX 1650 21

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

M4000M 45
GTX 1650 51
+15.1%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

M4000M 7
+38.3%
GTX 1650 5

SPECviewperf 12 - Maya

This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.

M4000M 56
GTX 1650 90
+60.6%

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

M4000M 80
+83.2%
GTX 1650 43

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

M4000M 89
+94.3%
GTX 1650 46

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

M4000M 110
+1591%
GTX 1650 7

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

M4000M 68
+120%
GTX 1650 31

SPECviewperf 12 - Medical

M4000M 27
+21.4%
GTX 1650 22

SPECviewperf 12 - Energy

M4000M 6.5
+80.6%
GTX 1650 3.6

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 HD63
−1.6%
64
+1.6%
1440p27−30
−40.7%
38
+40.7%
4K20
−20%
24
+20%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.33
1440pno data3.92
4Kno data6.21

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
−34.2%
50−55
+34.2%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
−31%
110−120
+31%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−32.3%
40−45
+32.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
−34.2%
50−55
+34.2%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+4.9%
61
−4.9%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
−31%
110−120
+31%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−32.3%
40−45
+32.3%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−35.3%
69
+35.3%
Fortnite 80−85
−151%
211
+151%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−45.2%
90
+45.2%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
−55.3%
73
+55.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
−63.6%
90
+63.6%
Valorant 120−130
−139%
292
+139%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
−34.2%
50−55
+34.2%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+20.8%
53
−20.8%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
−31%
110−120
+31%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 190−200
−16.1%
230−240
+16.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−32.3%
40−45
+32.3%
Dota 2 90−95
−3.2%
97
+3.2%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−23.5%
63
+23.5%
Fortnite 80−85
−1.2%
85
+1.2%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−33.9%
83
+33.9%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
−31.9%
62
+31.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
−42.1%
81
+42.1%
Metro Exodus 30−35
−12.9%
35
+12.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
−56.4%
86
+56.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
−73.2%
71
+73.2%
Valorant 120−130
−113%
260
+113%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+25.5%
51
−25.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−32.3%
40−45
+32.3%
Dota 2 90−95
+2.2%
92
−2.2%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−15.7%
59
+15.7%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−4.8%
65
+4.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
−20%
66
+20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
41
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+74.3%
70
−74.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 80−85
+37.7%
61
−37.7%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−37.9%
40−45
+37.9%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
−25.2%
130−140
+25.2%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
−66.7%
40
+66.7%
Metro Exodus 18−20
−5.3%
20
+5.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
−18.1%
170−180
+18.1%
Valorant 150−160
−15.7%
177
+15.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+7.7%
39
−7.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−21.2%
40
+21.2%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−24.3%
46
+24.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−29.2%
31
+29.2%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35
−27.3%
42
+27.3%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
−25%
14−16
+25%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
−54.5%
16−18
+54.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
−17.9%
33
+17.9%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−9.1%
12
+9.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−23.8%
26
+23.8%
Valorant 80−85
−1.2%
83
+1.2%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+4.8%
21
−4.8%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
−54.5%
16−18
+54.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Dota 2 50−55
−11.3%
59
+11.3%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−18.8%
19
+18.8%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−15.4%
30
+15.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
−85.7%
26
+85.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
+36.4%
11
−36.4%

This is how M4000M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 2% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 41% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 20% faster in 4K

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

  • in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M4000M is 74% faster.
  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 151% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • M4000M is ahead in 9 tests (14%)
  • GTX 1650 is ahead in 53 tests (84%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.74 17.63
Recency 18 August 2015 23 April 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 75 Watt

GTX 1650 has a 28.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M4000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M4000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop 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 M4000M
Quadro M4000M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

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.


4.1 147 votes

Rate Quadro M4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 24993 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro M4000M or GeForce GTX 1650, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.