GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro M5500
Aggregated performance score
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 254 | 256 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.76 | 18.99 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 April 2016 (8 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
| Current price | $1700 | $185 (1.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1650 has 588% better value for money than Quadro M5500.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. 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 | 1139 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1140 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5200 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 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro M5500 and GeForce GTX 1650 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| 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 | + | no 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6606 MHz | 8000 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 | no data | + |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 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 performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
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 | 70−75
+0%
| 70
+0%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
−8.6%
| 38
+8.6%
|
| 4K | 21−24
−9.5%
| 23
+9.5%
|
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 | 40−45
−29.3%
|
53
+29.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
−30.6%
|
47
+30.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+11.5%
|
61
−11.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 50−55
−43.4%
|
76
+43.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+3.1%
|
30−35
−3.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−25.9%
|
68
+25.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
−20%
|
66
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−28.6%
|
90
+28.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 55−60
−28.8%
|
76
+28.8%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
−27.9%
|
55
+27.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−57.6%
|
52
+57.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40−45
−31.8%
|
58
+31.8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−43.6%
|
56
+43.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 40−45
−14.6%
|
47
+14.6%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+2.9%
|
35
−2.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+28.3%
|
53
−28.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 50−55
−9.4%
|
58
+9.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+3.1%
|
30−35
−3.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−14.8%
|
62
+14.8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
−12.7%
|
62
+12.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−18.6%
|
83
+18.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 55−60
−5.1%
|
62
+5.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+4.9%
|
41
−4.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
−6.1%
|
35
+6.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+17.9%
|
28
−17.9%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40−45
−6.8%
|
47
+6.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
−64.4%
|
74
+64.4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
−23.1%
|
48
+23.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 40−45
+64%
|
25
−64%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+177%
|
13
−177%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+33.3%
|
51
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+3.1%
|
30−35
−3.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−7.4%
|
58
+7.4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
−3.6%
|
57
+3.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+7.7%
|
65
−7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+7.1%
|
42
−7.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+85.7%
|
21
−85.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−35
−16.1%
|
36
+16.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
−12.1%
|
37
+12.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+3.8%
|
26
−3.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
−13.3%
|
17
+13.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
−11.5%
|
29
+11.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18
−22.2%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 18−20
+46.2%
|
13
−46.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+15.4%
|
39
−15.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−14.7%
|
39
+14.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
−5.1%
|
41
+5.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−12.2%
|
46
+12.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20
+33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 18−20
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8
−62.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+7.7%
|
13
−7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−23.8%
|
26
+23.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12−14
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12
+120%
|
5
−120%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
19
+11.8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 20−22
−5%
|
21
+5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30
+3.4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8
−12.5%
|
This is how Quadro M5500 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 0% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 9% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 10% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro M5500 is 177% faster than the GTX 1650.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 64% faster than the Quadro M5500.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro M5500 is ahead in 24 tests (35%)
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 35 tests (51%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (13%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.45 | 20.36 |
| Recency | 4 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 |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro M5500 and GeForce GTX 1650.
Be aware that Quadro M5500 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
