GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs Quadro M4000M

Place in the ranking	339	336
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	10.93	36.60
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GM204	TU117
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)

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	1,280	1024
Core clock speed	975 MHz	930 MHz
Boost clock speed	1013 MHz	1125 MHz
Number of transistors	5,200 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	30 Watt
Texture fill rate	78.00	72.00
Floating-point processing power	2.496 TFLOPS	2.304 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	80	64

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	large	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
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
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160 GB/s	112.1 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	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	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 results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark 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.

M4000M 15.95

GTX 1650 Max-Q 16.03
+0.5%

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 6148

GTX 1650 Max-Q 6176
+0.5%

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 Max-Q 11083
+8%

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 Max-Q 7779
+0.7%

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
+8.8%

GTX 1650 Max-Q 45244

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	68 +19.3%	57 −19.3%
1440p	27−30 −11.1%	30 +11.1%
4K	14−16 −7.1%	15 +7.1%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

24−27

+0%

24−27

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 −36.1%	49 +36.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Battlefield 5	50−55 −21.2%	63 +21.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 −31.3%	42 +31.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −26.3%	48 +26.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 −34.1%	59 +34.1%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 −89.3%	195 +89.3%
Hitman 3	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +1.3%	80−85 −1.3%
Metro Exodus	55−60 −29.1%	71 +29.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −22.7%	54 +22.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 −91.7%	69 +91.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Battlefield 5	50−55 −5.8%	55 +5.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 −25%	40 +25%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	38 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +7.3%	41 −7.3%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 −73.8%	179 +73.8%
Hitman 3	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +1.3%	80−85 −1.3%
Metro Exodus	55−60 −5.5%	58 +5.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −2.3%	45 +2.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +80%	20 −80%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−35 +28%	25 −28%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +46.2%	26 −46.2%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +87.3%	55 −87.3%
Hitman 3	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +1.3%	80−85 −1.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +26.7%	30 −26.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45
+4.8%

−4.8%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 −6.5%	33 +6.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 −4%	26 +4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 −6.3%	17 +6.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	19 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 −45.9%	124 +45.9%
Hitman 3	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	27−30 −10.3%	32 +10.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

+0%

24−27

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +45.5%	11 −45.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −8.3%	13 +8.3%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 −37.5%	22 +37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −20%	18 +20%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +12.5%	8 −12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16
+7.7%

−7.7%

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

M4000M is 19% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Max-Q is 11% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Max-Q is 7% faster in 4K

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M4000M is 87% faster.
in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 Max-Q is 92% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

M4000M is ahead in 13 tests (18%)
GTX 1650 Max-Q is ahead in 22 tests (31%)
there's a draw in 37 tests (51%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.95	16.03
Recency	18 August 2015	23 April 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	30 Watt

GTX 1650 Max-Q has a 0.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro M4000M and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q.

Be aware that Quadro M4000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.