GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro P400

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GTX 1650 GTX 1650 GDDR6 GTX 1650 SUPER GTX 1650 TU106 GTX 1650 TU116

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P400 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P400
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 30 Watt
4.24

GTX 1650 outperforms P400 by a whopping 378% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Quadro P400 Quadro P400
GTX 1650 GTX 1650

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking690281
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.5137.54
Power efficiency9.8118.74
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGP107TU117
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date7 February 2017 (8 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$119.99 $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 1396% better value for money than Quadro P400.

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 cores256896
Core clock speed1228 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speed1252 MHz1665 MHz
Number of transistors3,300 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate20.0393.24
Floating-point processing power0.641 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs1656

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length145 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1002 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth32.06 GB/s128.0 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 Connectors3x mini-DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
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.

Quadro P400 4.24
GTX 1650 20.25
+378%

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 P400 1648
GTX 1650 7879
+378%

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.

Quadro P400 5626
GTX 1650 39112
+595%

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.

Quadro P400 5149
GTX 1650 35920
+598%

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.

Quadro P400 5691
GTX 1650 39941
+602%

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 HD14−16
−393%
69
+393%
1440p8−9
−413%
41
+413%
4K5−6
−400%
25
+400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p8.57
−297%
2.16
+297%
1440p15.00
−313%
3.63
+313%
4K24.00
−303%
5.96
+303%
  • GTX 1650 has 297% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 has 313% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 has 303% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Battlefield 5 61
+0%
61
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+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 60
+0%
60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90
+0%
90
+0%
Valorant 292
+0%
292
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Battlefield 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+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 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 81
+0%
81
+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 Preset

Battlefield 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+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%
Forza Horizon 5 41
+0%
41
+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 Preset

Fortnite 61
+0%
61
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+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 Preset

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%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+0%
31
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 42
+0%
42
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 33
+0%
33
+0%
Metro Exodus 12
+0%
12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+0%
26
+0%
Valorant 83
+0%
83
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+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%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 26
+0%
26
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 11
+0%
11
+0%

This is how Quadro P400 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 393% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 413% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 400% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 4.24 20.25
Recency 7 February 2017 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 75 Watt

Quadro P400 has 150% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 377.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P400 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P400 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 P400
Quadro P400
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Quadro P400 Quadro P400
vs
FirePro W600 FirePro W600
GTX 1650 GeForce GTX 1650
vs
GTX 780 GeForce GTX 780
Quadro P400 Quadro P400
vs
GRID M40 GRID M40
Tesla T4 NVIDIA Tesla T4
vs
Quadro P400 Quadro P400
RX 590 AMD Radeon RX 590
vs
Quadro P400 Quadro P400
GTX 1060 6 GB GDDR5X NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB GDDR5X
vs
Quadro P400 Quadro P400
RX 580 2048SP AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP
vs
Quadro P400 Quadro P400
GeForce MX230 NVIDIA GeForce MX230
vs
Quadro P400 Quadro P400
GTX 1650 Max-Q NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
vs
Quadro P400 Quadro P400
GTX 1660 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
vs
Quadro P400 Quadro P400
RX 560 XT AMD Radeon RX 560 XT
vs
Quadro P400 Quadro P400
Pro WX 3200 AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
vs
Quadro P400 Quadro P400
RX 640 AMD Radeon RX 640
vs
Quadro P400 Quadro P400

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.1 495 votes

Rate Quadro P400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 24781 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro P400 or GeForce GTX 1650, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.