GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro P5000

Place in the ranking	167	274
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.71	37.40
Power efficiency	12.56	18.81
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GP104	TU117
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	1 October 2016 (8 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$2,499	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 has 457% better value for money than Quadro P5000.

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	2048	896
Core clock speed	1607 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	1733 MHz	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	277.3	93.24
Floating-point processing power	8.873 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	160	56

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	229 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	None

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1127 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192 GB/s	128.0 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	1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+
Display Port	1.4	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.5
OpenGL	4.5	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 P5000 31.59
+60.3%

GTX 1650 19.71

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 P5000 12624
+60.3%

GTX 1650 7875

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 P5000 52839
+35.1%

GTX 1650 39125

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro P5000 56332
+57.1%

GTX 1650 35853

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro P5000 45153
+13%

GTX 1650 39941

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	98 +42%	69 −42%
1440p	60−65 +50%	40 −50%
4K	40 +73.9%	23 −73.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	25.50 −1081%	2.16 +1081%
1440p	41.65 −1018%	3.73 +1018%
4K	62.48 −864%	6.48 +864%

GTX 1650 has 1081% lower cost per frame in 1080p
GTX 1650 has 1018% lower cost per frame in 1440p
GTX 1650 has 864% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +75.7%	35−40 −75.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +68.3%	40−45 −68.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +42.4%	66 −42.4%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +75.7%	35−40 −75.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +306%	17 −306%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +62.8%	94 −62.8%
Forza Horizon 5	85−90 +41.7%	60 −41.7%
Metro Exodus	80−85 +24.2%	66 −24.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 −14.9%	77 +14.9%
Valorant	130−140 +52.9%	85 −52.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +25.3%	75 −25.3%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +75.7%	35−40 −75.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +393%	14 −393%
Dota 2	100−110 +30.5%	82 −30.5%
Far Cry 5	85−90 −1.1%	90 +1.1%
Fortnite	150−160 +85.4%	82 −85.4%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +107%	74 −107%
Forza Horizon 5	85−90 +54.5%	55−60 −54.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−110 +42.7%	75 −42.7%
Metro Exodus	80−85 +86.4%	44 −86.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +35%	130−140 −35%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +139%	28 −139%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110−120 +72.3%	65−70 −72.3%
Valorant	130−140 +183%	46 −183%
World of Tanks	270−280 +17.9%	230−240 −17.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +70.9%	55 −70.9%
Counter-Strike 2	65−70 +75.7%	35−40 −75.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +475%	12 −475%
Dota 2	100−110 +16.3%	92 −16.3%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +30.9%	65−70 −30.9%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +147%	62 −147%
Forza Horizon 5	85−90 +107%	41 −107%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +203%	61 −203%
Valorant	130−140 +85.7%	70 −85.7%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	55−60 +78.8%	30−35 −78.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +78.8%	30−35 −78.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +1.7%	170−180 −1.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +82.4%	17 −82.4%
World of Tanks	210−220 +51.8%	130−140 −51.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +68.4%	38 −68.4%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +55.6%	18−20 −55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +343%	7 −343%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +85.7%	55−60 −85.7%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +102%	45 −102%
Forza Horizon 5	50−55 +68.8%	30−35 −68.8%
Metro Exodus	70−75 +78%	41 −78%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +82.8%	27−30 −82.8%
Valorant	95−100 +140%	40 −140%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +22.2%	18−20 −22.2%
Dota 2	60−65 +110%	29 −110%
Grand Theft Auto V	60−65 +110%	29 −110%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +125%	12 −125%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +66.1%	60−65 −66.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +61.5%	12−14 −61.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +110%	29 −110%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +106%	18 −106%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +22.2%	18−20 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +333%	3 −333%
Dota 2	60−65 +3.4%	59 −3.4%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +70.4%	27−30 −70.4%
Fortnite	40−45 +76%	24−27 −76%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +104%	26 −104%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30 +70.6%	16−18 −70.6%
Valorant	45−50 +133%	21 −133%

This is how Quadro P5000 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

Quadro P5000 is 42% faster in 1080p
Quadro P5000 is 50% faster in 1440p
Quadro P5000 is 74% faster in 4K

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

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P5000 is 475% faster.
in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 15% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro P5000 is ahead in 62 tests (97%)
GTX 1650 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	31.59	19.71
Recency	1 October 2016	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	75 Watt