GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro M5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5000 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
M5000 outperforms GTX 1650 by a moderate 19% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 235 | 279 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.29 | 37.65 |
| Power efficiency | 11.22 | 18.82 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,856.99 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1650 has 1044% better value for money than Quadro M5000.
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 | 2048 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 861 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 132.9 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.252 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 56 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 2" (5.1 cm) | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 256 Bit | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 211 GB/s | 128.0 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, 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync | no data |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| ECC (Error Correcting Code) | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API and SDK 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 | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 | 80−85
+17.6%
| 68
−17.6%
|
| 1440p | 45−50
+12.5%
| 40
−12.5%
|
| 4K | 27−30
+17.4%
| 23
−17.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 35.71
−1530%
| 2.19
+1530%
|
| 1440p | 63.49
−1604%
| 3.73
+1604%
|
| 4K | 105.81
−1533%
| 6.48
+1533%
|
- GTX 1650 has 1530% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1650 has 1604% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1650 has 1533% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
This is how Quadro M5000 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- Quadro M5000 is 18% faster in 1080p
- Quadro M5000 is 13% faster in 1440p
- Quadro M5000 is 17% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.04 | 20.16 |
| Recency | 29 June 2015 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
Quadro M5000 has a 19.2% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1650, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
