GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q vs Quadro P1000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P1000 with GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P1000
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 40 Watt
11.57

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q outperforms P1000 by a considerable 44% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking412326
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.84no data
Power efficiency20.1623.18
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGP107TU117
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date7 February 2017 (7 years ago)2 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$375 no data

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 cores6401024
Core clock speed1493 MHz1035 MHz
Boost clock speed1519 MHz1200 MHz
Number of transistors3,300 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)40 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate48.6176.80
Floating-point processing power1.555 TFLOPS2.458 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs3264

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length145 mmno data
WidthMXM Moduleno data
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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth96.13 GB/s160.0 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.76.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.01.2
Vulkan1.31.2.140
CUDA6.17.5

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 P1000 11.57
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 16.63
+43.7%

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 P1000 4464
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 6413
+43.7%

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.

Quadro P1000 6001
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 11538
+92.3%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Quadro P1000 24240
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 31116
+28.4%

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.

Quadro P1000 4787
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 8564
+78.9%

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.

Quadro P1000 30721
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 47657
+55.1%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Quadro P1000 1395
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 3098
+122%

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 HD42
−28.6%
54
+28.6%
1440p24−27
−45.8%
35
+45.8%
4K11
−127%
25
+127%

Cost per frame, $

1080p8.93no data
1440p15.63no data
4K34.09no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
−44.4%
24−27
+44.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
−81.5%
49
+81.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
−111%
38
+111%
Battlefield 5 35−40
−45.9%
50−55
+45.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−95.7%
45
+95.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
−44.4%
24−27
+44.4%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−44.4%
35−40
+44.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
−40.6%
45−50
+40.6%
Forza Horizon 4 108
+1.9%
100−110
−1.9%
Hitman 3 21−24
−105%
45
+105%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
−33.9%
80−85
+33.9%
Metro Exodus 35−40
−126%
86
+126%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
−96.9%
63
+96.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 53
−1.9%
50−55
+1.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−197%
202
+197%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
−40.7%
35−40
+40.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
−33.3%
24
+33.3%
Battlefield 5 35−40
−45.9%
50−55
+45.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−47.8%
34
+47.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
−44.4%
24−27
+44.4%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−44.4%
35−40
+44.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
−40.6%
45−50
+40.6%
Forza Horizon 4 100
−6%
100−110
+6%
Hitman 3 21−24
−95.5%
43
+95.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
−33.9%
80−85
+33.9%
Metro Exodus 35−40
−73.7%
66
+73.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
−43.8%
46
+43.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−67.6%
62
+67.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
−34.5%
35−40
+34.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
−184%
193
+184%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+42.1%
19
−42.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+50%
12
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+4.5%
22
−4.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
−44.4%
24−27
+44.4%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−44.4%
35−40
+44.4%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
−39.5%
100−110
+39.5%
Hitman 3 21−24
−72.7%
38
+72.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+8.8%
57
−8.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
−45.9%
54
+45.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
−100%
32
+100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+325%
16
−325%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
−43.8%
46
+43.8%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
−45.5%
30−35
+45.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
−38.9%
24−27
+38.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
−54.5%
16−18
+54.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
−50%
12
+50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
−50%
18−20
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−46.2%
18−20
+46.2%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−61.8%
85−90
+61.8%
Hitman 3 14−16
−78.6%
25
+78.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−70.8%
41
+70.8%
Metro Exodus 18−20
−66.7%
30−33
+66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−106%
35
+106%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−63.6%
18−20
+63.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
−80.6%
130
+80.6%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
−42.1%
27−30
+42.1%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
−45.5%
16−18
+45.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Hitman 3 7−8
−100%
14
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
−60.4%
85−90
+60.4%
Metro Exodus 10−11
−70%
16−18
+70%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−122%
20
+122%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−53.3%
21−24
+53.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−133%
21
+133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
−36.4%
14−16
+36.4%

This is how Quadro P1000 and GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 29% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 46% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 127% faster in 4K

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P1000 is 325% faster.
  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro P1000 is ahead in 6 tests (8%)
  • GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is ahead in 65 tests (90%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.57 16.63
Recency 7 February 2017 2 April 2020
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 40 Watt 50 Watt

Quadro P1000 has 25% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 43.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P1000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P1000 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q is a notebook 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 P1000
Quadro P1000
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 572 votes

Rate Quadro P1000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 208 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q 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.