GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile
Aggregated performance score
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 191 | 190 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 55 |
| Value for money | 6.19 | 27.05 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2021) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | N19E-Q1 | TU116 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 27 May 2019 (4 years old) | 29 October 2019 (4 years old) |
| Current price | $2393 | $206 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1650 SUPER has 337% better value for money than RTX 3000 Mobile.
Technical specs
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 | 1920 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 945 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1380 MHz | 1725 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,800 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 125 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 198.7 | 138.0 |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile and GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
Memory
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 12000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | no data | + |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | + |
| Multi Monitor | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 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.
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%
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile by 28% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER by 9% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER by 21% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER by 33% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
Benchmark coverage: 3%
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile by 53% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER by 90% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER by 1251% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER by 109% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER by 196% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER by 56% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER by 50% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
Benchmark coverage: 3%
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER by 119% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 3dsmax-05
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER by 24% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 3dsmax-05.
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 | 95
+31.9%
| 72
−31.9%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
−2.9%
| 36
+2.9%
|
| 4K | 88
+300%
| 22
−300%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−46.5%
|
63
+46.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 77
+51%
|
50−55
−51%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50
−15.2%
|
53
+15.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+16.7%
|
72
−16.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−16.3%
|
50
+16.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−36.8%
|
93
+36.8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 91
+2.2%
|
89
−2.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 75−80
−32.9%
|
105
+32.9%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 55−60
−32.1%
|
74
+32.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
−69%
|
71
+69%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 100
+17.6%
|
85
−17.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
−42%
|
71
+42%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 62
+21.6%
|
50−55
−21.6%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50
+76.9%
|
26
−76.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+44.8%
|
58
−44.8%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+7.5%
|
40
−7.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−26.5%
|
86
+26.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 86
+3.6%
|
83
−3.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 75−80
−5.1%
|
83
+5.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 55−60
−3.6%
|
58
+3.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−15.9%
|
51
+15.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+40%
|
30
−40%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 84
+25.4%
|
67
−25.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 109
+21.1%
|
90
−21.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
−22%
|
61
+22%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 39
−30.8%
|
50−55
+30.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50
+207%
|
15
−207%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+47.4%
|
57
−47.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+26.5%
|
34
−26.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−16.2%
|
79
+16.2%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 77
+1.3%
|
76
−1.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 56
+12%
|
50
−12%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+138%
|
21
−138%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40−45
−2.5%
|
40−45
+2.5%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
−15.9%
|
51
+15.9%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
−11.4%
|
39
+11.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−11.5%
|
29
+11.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
11
−81.8%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
−14.3%
|
40
+14.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 24−27
+100%
|
13
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+38.1%
|
42
−38.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20
+17.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
−20%
|
54
+20%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55
−7.8%
|
55
+7.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14
−42.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+240%
|
5
−240%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−10.3%
|
32
+10.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
+180%
|
5
−180%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+29.2%
|
24
−29.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24
+9.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
−7.7%
|
28
+7.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+50%
|
8
−50%
|
This is how RTX 3000 Mobile and GTX 1650 SUPER compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- RTX 3000 Mobile is 31.9% faster than GTX 1650 SUPER
1440p resolution:
- GTX 1650 SUPER is 2.9% faster than RTX 3000 Mobile
4K resolution:
- RTX 3000 Mobile is 300% faster than GTX 1650 SUPER
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3000 Mobile is 240% faster than the GTX 1650 SUPER.
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 SUPER is 69% faster than the RTX 3000 Mobile.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3000 Mobile is ahead in 27 tests (40%)
- GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead in 26 tests (38%)
- there's a draw in 15 tests (22%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 26.12 | 26.19 |
| Recency | 27 May 2019 | 29 October 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 125 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile and GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER.
Be aware that Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile 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.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
