GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro M5500

Place in the ranking	268	269
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	38.91
Power efficiency	9.38	18.67
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GM204	TU117
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	8 April 2016 (8 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	2048	896
Core clock speed	1140 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	1165 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	149.1	93.24
Floating-point processing power	4.772 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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1753 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	211 GB/s	128.0 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+
Display Port	1.2	no data
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
VR Ready	+	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	+	1.2.131
CUDA	+	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.

Quadro M5500 20.54
+0.5%

GTX 1650 20.43

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.

Quadro M5500 7915
+0.5%

GTX 1650 7873

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	65−70 −6.2%	69 +6.2%
1440p	35−40 −11.4%	39 +11.4%
4K	21−24 −4.8%	22 +4.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.16
1440p	no data	3.82
4K	no data	6.77

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−35
+3.1%

30−35

−3.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 −15.2%	53 +15.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 −38.2%	47 +38.2%
Battlefield 5	65−70 −17.9%	79 +17.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 −23.8%	52 +23.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +3.1%	30−35 −3.1%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −33.3%	64 +33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 −45.5%	80 +45.5%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 −81.7%	229 +81.7%
Hitman 3	40−45 −22.5%	49 +22.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	95−100 −198%	292 +198%
Metro Exodus	70−75 −42.3%	101 +42.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 −40%	77 +40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 −69.1%	115 +69.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 −141%	224 +141%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 −80.4%	83 +80.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 −2.9%	35 +2.9%
Battlefield 5	65−70 −7.5%	72 +7.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 −9.5%	46 +9.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +3.1%	30−35 −3.1%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −8.3%	52 +8.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 −1.8%	56 +1.8%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 −59.5%	201 +59.5%
Hitman 3	40−45 −17.5%	47 +17.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	95−100 −165%	260 +165%
Metro Exodus	70−75 +0%	71 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 +0%	55 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 −8.8%	74 +8.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 −122%	206 +122%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +84%	25 −84%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +162%	13 −162%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	40−45 +425%	8 −425%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +3.1%	30−35 −3.1%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +23.1%	39 −23.1%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 +93.8%	65 −93.8%
Hitman 3	40−45 −2.5%	41 +2.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	95−100 +63.3%	60 −63.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	65−70 +9.7%	62 −9.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +9.5%	42 −9.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 +343%	21 −343%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

55−60
+1.9%

−1.9%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 −7.7%	42 +7.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 −16.1%	36 +16.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +16.7%	18 −16.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +46.2%	13 −46.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +0%	24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 −6.1%	122 +6.1%
Hitman 3	24−27 −12.5%	27 +12.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 −2.4%	43 +2.4%
Metro Exodus	35−40 −7.9%	41 +7.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 −7.1%	45 +7.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	120−130 −20.8%	145 +20.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35

−2.9%

35
+2.9%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 +0%	20 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 −6.3%	17 +6.3%
Hitman 3	16−18 +23.1%	13 −23.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−110 +159%	41 −159%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −22.7%	27 +22.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −23.8%	26 +23.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −8.3%	13 +8.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +100%	5 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −9.1%	12 +9.1%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −7.1%	30 +7.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 −13%	26 +13%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 +12.5%	8 −12.5%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20
+5.9%

−5.9%

This is how Quadro M5500 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 6% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 is 11% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 is 5% faster in 4K

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

in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro M5500 is 425% faster.
in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 198% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro M5500 is ahead in 21 test (29%)
GTX 1650 is ahead in 41 test (57%)
there's a draw in 10 tests (14%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	20.54	20.43
Recency	8 April 2016	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	75 Watt