GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile vs Quadro M4000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

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

M4000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
15.97

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile outperforms M4000M by a significant 27% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking340274
Place by popularitynot in top-10062
Power efficiency11.0227.99
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGM204TU116
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)23 April 2020 (4 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 cores1,2801024
Core clock speed975 MHz1350 MHz
Boost clock speed1013 MHz1485 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate78.0095.04
Floating-point processing power2.496 TFLOPS3.041 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs8064

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s192.0 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 outputsNo outputs
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 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+1.2.140
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. 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 15.97
GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 20.28
+27%

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 6142
GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 7796
+26.9%

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 Ti Mobile 13266
+29.3%

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 Ti Mobile 9930
+28.6%

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 Ti Mobile 65163
+32.4%

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 HD75
+27.1%
59
−27.1%
1440p30−35
−43.3%
43
+43.3%
4K20
−25%
25
+25%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−50%
42
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−90.3%
59
+90.3%
Elden Ring 45−50
−16.3%
57
+16.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
−13.5%
59
+13.5%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−28.6%
36
+28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−29%
40
+29%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−46.2%
95
+46.2%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−50%
66
+50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−15.8%
44
+15.8%
Valorant 60−65
−53.1%
98
+53.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
−23.1%
60−65
+23.1%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−7.1%
30
+7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−3.2%
32
+3.2%
Dota 2 55−60
−57.9%
90
+57.9%
Elden Ring 45−50
−49%
73
+49%
Far Cry 5 55−60
−22.8%
70
+22.8%
Fortnite 85−90
−21.6%
100−110
+21.6%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−15.4%
75
+15.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
−33.3%
76
+33.3%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−2.3%
45
+2.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
−20.4%
130−140
+20.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+31%
29
−31%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
−30.6%
60−65
+30.6%
Valorant 60−65
+33.3%
48
−33.3%
World of Tanks 200−210
−15.3%
230−240
+15.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
52
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−28.6%
35−40
+28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+6.9%
29
−6.9%
Dota 2 55−60
−96.5%
112
+96.5%
Far Cry 5 55−60
−17.5%
65−70
+17.5%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+3.2%
63
−3.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
−20.4%
130−140
+20.4%
Valorant 60−65
−28.1%
80−85
+28.1%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 24−27
−33.3%
30−35
+33.3%
Elden Ring 24−27
−36%
30−35
+36%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
−37.5%
30−35
+37.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
−16.2%
170−180
+16.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−21.4%
17
+21.4%
World of Tanks 110−120
−23.4%
130−140
+23.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
−28.1%
41
+28.1%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−21.4%
16−18
+21.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−33.3%
16
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−37.5%
55−60
+37.5%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−33.3%
50−55
+33.3%
Metro Exodus 35−40
−31.4%
45−50
+31.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−33.3%
27−30
+33.3%
Valorant 40−45
−30%
50−55
+30%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−41.7%
16−18
+41.7%
Dota 2 27−30
−21.4%
30−35
+21.4%
Elden Ring 10−12
−36.4%
14−16
+36.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
−25.9%
30−35
+25.9%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−36.4%
14−16
+36.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−29.8%
60−65
+29.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−30%
12−14
+30%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
−25.9%
30−35
+25.9%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
−46.7%
22
+46.7%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−41.7%
16−18
+41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−50%
6
+50%
Dota 2 27−30
−85.7%
52
+85.7%
Far Cry 5 20−22
−30%
24−27
+30%
Fortnite 18−20
−33.3%
24−27
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−30.4%
30−33
+30.4%
Valorant 18−20
−33.3%
24−27
+33.3%

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

  • M4000M is 27% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is 43% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is 25% faster in 4K

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

  • in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the M4000M is 33% faster.
  • in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is 96% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • M4000M is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
  • GTX 1650 Ti Mobile is ahead in 58 tests (92%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.97 20.28
Recency 18 August 2015 23 April 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 50 Watt

GTX 1650 Ti Mobile has a 27% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile 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 Ti Mobile 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.

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 Ti Mobile
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Mobile

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.


4.1 145 votes

Rate Quadro M4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 1716 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.