GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile vs Quadro P4200

Place in performance ranking	196	281
Place by popularity	not in top-100	51
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation	7.56	39.97
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	GP104	N18P-G0, N18P-G61
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	7 May 2018 (5 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Current price	$1526	$301

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 Mobile has 429% better value for money than Quadro P4200.

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	2304	1024
Core clock speed	1215 MHz	1380 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	1560 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	115 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	237.2	99.84

Form Factor & Compatibility

Information on Quadro P4200 and GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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	medium sized
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

Memory type	GDDR5	GDDR5, GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	7132 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

Supported Technologies

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

Optimus

no data

API Compatibility

List of supported graphics 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	1.2.140
CUDA	6.1	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.

Quadro P4200 25.05
+36.3%

GTX 1650 Mobile 18.38

Quadro P4200 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile by 36% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

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%

Quadro P4200 10578
+48.7%

GTX 1650 Mobile 7116

Quadro P4200 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile by 49% in Passmark.

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	80−85 +35.6%	59 −35.6%
1440p	50−55 +35.1%	37 −35.1%
4K	30−35 +30.4%	23 −30.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

40−45

−26.8%

52
+26.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 −12.2%	55 +12.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45 +4.8%	42 −4.8%
Battlefield 5	80−85 +35%	60 −35%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 +4.8%	63 −4.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	41 +0%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +10%	60 −10%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +20%	55 −20%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +1.2%	82 −1.2%
Hitman 3	75−80 +8.7%	69 −8.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +1.9%	53 −1.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 −17.1%	48 +17.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 −5.5%	58 +5.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	48 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +2.1%	48 −2.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45 +83.3%	24 −83.3%
Battlefield 5	80−85 +35%	60 −35%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 +34.7%	49 −34.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +28.1%	32 −28.1%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +22.2%	54 −22.2%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +20%	55 −20%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +3.8%	80 −3.8%
Hitman 3	75−80 +31.6%	57 −31.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +38.5%	39 −38.5%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +27.3%	33 −27.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +51.9%	27 −51.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +14.6%	48 −14.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 −8.8%	62 +8.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +14.3%	42 −14.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +63.3%	30 −63.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45 +450%	8 −450%
Battlefield 5	80−85 +37.3%	59 −37.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +36.7%	30 −36.7%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +24.5%	53 −24.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +29.4%	51 −29.4%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +33.9%	62 −33.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +58.3%	36 −58.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +182%	17 −182%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +2.6%	38 −2.6%
Hitman 3	40−45 +13.5%	37 −13.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +37.5%	24 −37.5%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +25%	20 −25%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +35.7%	14−16 −35.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +13.3%	30 −13.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +22.7%	22 −22.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +56.3%	16−18 −56.3%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +19.1%	47 −19.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +6.7%	15 −6.7%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +22.9%	35 −22.9%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +23.1%	39 −23.1%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +40.5%	35−40 −40.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−33 +50%	20−22 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 +58.3%	12 −58.3%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 +186%	7 −186%
Hitman 3	24−27 +26.3%	19 −26.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +100%	8 −100%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +25%	12 −25%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +30%	10−11 −30%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +20%	15 −20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +28.6%	21 −28.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +33.3%	12 −33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%
Battlefield 5	30−33 +20%	25 −20%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +20%	5 −20%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +16.7%	18 −16.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +26.3%	19 −26.3%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +34.6%	24−27 −34.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%

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

Quadro P4200 is 35.6% faster than GTX 1650 Mobile in 1080p
Quadro P4200 is 35.1% faster than GTX 1650 Mobile in 1440p
Quadro P4200 is 30.4% faster than GTX 1650 Mobile 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 P4200 is 450% faster than the GTX 1650 Mobile.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GTX 1650 Mobile is 26.8% faster than the Quadro P4200.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P4200 is ahead in 61 test (90%)
GTX 1650 Mobile is ahead in 5 tests (7%)
there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & Cons Summary

Performance score	25.05	18.38
Recency	7 May 2018	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	115 Watt	50 Watt