GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs Quadro P4200

Place in the ranking	216	211
Place by popularity	not in top-100	57
Power efficiency	17.40	18.24
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GP104	TU116
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	21 February 2018 (6 years ago)	22 November 2019 (5 years ago)

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	2304	1280
Core clock speed	1227 MHz	1530 MHz
Boost clock speed	1647 MHz	1725 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	237.2	138.0
Floating-point processing power	7.589 TFLOPS	4.416 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	144	80

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	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	12000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.3 GB/s	192.0 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	-	+

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
VR Ready	no data	+
Multi Monitor	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	6.1	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 P4200 25.22

GTX 1650 SUPER 26.44
+4.8%

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 P4200 10543
+3.7%

GTX 1650 SUPER 10166

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 P4200 38375

GTX 1650 SUPER 55765
+45.3%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro P4200 37676

GTX 1650 SUPER 56481
+49.9%

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 −7.7%	70 +7.7%
1440p	30−35 −20%	36 +20%
4K	21−24 −9.5%	23 +9.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	45−50 −29.8%	61 +29.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 −23.5%	63 +23.5%
Elden Ring	80−85 +9.2%	76 −9.2%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 −3.9%	80−85 +3.9%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 −2.1%	48 +2.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +8.5%	47 −8.5%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 −9%	121 +9%
Metro Exodus	65−70 −34.8%	89 +34.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 −52.7%	84 +52.7%
Valorant	100−110 −13.9%	115 +13.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 −3.9%	80−85 +3.9%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +20.5%	39 −20.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +34.2%	38 −34.2%
Dota 2	85−90 −58.6%	138 +58.6%
Elden Ring	80−85 +1.2%	82 −1.2%
Far Cry 5	75−80 −96.1%	151 +96.1%
Fortnite	120−130 −3.2%	130−140 +3.2%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +9.9%	101 −9.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	85−90 −19.8%	103 +19.8%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +8.2%	61 −8.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 −3.2%	160−170 +3.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60 +83.3%	30 −83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	80−85 −6.1%	85−90 +6.1%
Valorant	100−110 −5%	100−110 +5%
World of Tanks	250−260 −1.5%	260−270 +1.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 −3.9%	80−85 +3.9%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +34.3%	35 −34.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +59.4%	32 −59.4%
Dota 2	85−90 −120%	191 +120%
Far Cry 5	75−80 −2.6%	75−80 +2.6%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120 +33.7%	83 −33.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 −3.2%	160−170 +3.2%
Valorant	100−110 −5%	100−110 +5%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	40−45 −7.1%	45 +7.1%
Elden Ring	45−50 +45.2%	31 −45.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	40−45 −4.7%	45 +4.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +109%	11 −109%
World of Tanks	160−170 −4.2%	170−180 +4.2%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 −3.9%	50−55 +3.9%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +10%	20 −10%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +10.5%	19 −10.5%
Far Cry 5	70−75 −5.4%	75−80 +5.4%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +11.7%	60 −11.7%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +3.6%	55 −3.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 −5.4%	35−40 +5.4%
Valorant	65−70 −5.9%	70−75 +5.9%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +130%	10 −130%
Dota 2	40−45 −2.3%	45 +2.3%
Elden Ring	20−22 +17.6%	17 −17.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	40−45 −2.3%	45 +2.3%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +18.8%	16 −18.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 −5.2%	80−85 +5.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 −2.3%	45 +2.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −7.7%	27−30 +7.7%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −4.3%	24−27 +4.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +60%	5 −60%
Dota 2	40−45 −81.8%	80 +81.8%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −6.1%	35−40 +6.1%
Fortnite	30−35 −6.5%	30−35 +6.5%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +30%	30 −30%
Valorant	30−35 −6.1%	35−40 +6.1%

This is how Quadro P4200 and GTX 1650 SUPER compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 SUPER is 8% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 SUPER is 20% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 SUPER is 10% faster in 4K

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

in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P4200 is 130% faster.
in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 SUPER is 120% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P4200 is ahead in 22 tests (35%)
GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead in 40 tests (63%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	25.22	26.44
Recency	21 February 2018	22 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	12 nm

Quadro P4200 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 1650 SUPER, on the other hand, has a 4.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 33.3% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro P4200 and GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER.

Be aware that Quadro P4200 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.