GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro NVS 280 SD

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1598323
Place by popularitynot in top-1005
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data28.12
Power efficiencyno data19.19
ArchitectureCelsius (1999−2005)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameNV18 C1TU117
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date31 May 2005 (20 years ago)23 April 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 coresno data896
Core clock speed250 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1665 MHz
Number of transistors29 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology150 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate1.00093.24
Floating-point processing powerno data2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs232
TMUs456
L1 Cacheno data896 KB
L2 Cacheno data1024 KB

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).

InterfaceAGP 8xPCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mm229 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDRGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount64 MB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed200 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth3.2 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DMS-591x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX8.012 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGL1.34.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-7.5

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

NVS 280 SD 2
Samples: 2
GTX 1650 7870
+393400%
Samples: 28890

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 HDno data64
1440pno data38
4Kno data24

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.33
1440pno data3.92
4Kno data6.21

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 61
+0%
61
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 69
+0%
69
+0%
Fortnite 211
+0%
211
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90
+0%
90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 73
+0%
73
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90
+0%
90
+0%
Valorant 292
+0%
292
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 97
+0%
97
+0%
Far Cry 5 63
+0%
63
+0%
Fortnite 85
+0%
85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 83
+0%
83
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 62
+0%
62
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 81
+0%
81
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 35
+0%
35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 86
+0%
86
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 71
+0%
71
+0%
Valorant 260
+0%
260
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 92
+0%
92
+0%
Far Cry 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65
+0%
65
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 66
+0%
66
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 41
+0%
41
+0%
Valorant 70
+0%
70
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 61
+0%
61
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40
+0%
40
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 177
+0%
177
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 39
+0%
39
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 40
+0%
40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 46
+0%
46
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+0%
31
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 42
+0%
42
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 33
+0%
33
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 12
+0%
12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+0%
26
+0%
Valorant 83
+0%
83
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 59
+0%
59
+0%
Far Cry 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+0%
30
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 26
+0%
26
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 11
+0%
11
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 31 May 2005 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 64 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 150 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 75 Watt

NVS 280 SD has 650% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 13 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1150% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Quadro NVS 280 SD and GeForce GTX 1650. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 280 SD is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.

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 NVS 280 SD
Quadro NVS 280 SD
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

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.


1 1 vote

Rate Quadro NVS 280 SD on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 27015 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro NVS 280 SD or GeForce GTX 1650, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.