GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro RTX 4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 4000 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4000 outperforms GTX 1650 by an impressive 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 110 | 272 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 37.12 | 37.80 |
| Power efficiency | 17.11 | 18.84 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 November 2018 (6 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $899 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1650 has 2% better value for money than RTX 4000.
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 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 1005 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1545 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 222.5 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.119 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 144 | 56 |
| Tensor Cores | 288 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 36 | no data |
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 | 241 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 1-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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1625 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 416.0 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 | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 130−140
+88.4%
| 69
−88.4%
|
| 1440p | 75−80
+87.5%
| 40
−87.5%
|
| 4K | 40−45
+73.9%
| 23
−73.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.92
−220%
| 2.16
+220%
|
| 1440p | 11.99
−222%
| 3.73
+222%
|
| 4K | 22.48
−247%
| 6.48
+247%
|
- GTX 1650 has 220% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1650 has 222% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1650 has 247% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
This is how RTX 4000 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- RTX 4000 is 88% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4000 is 88% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4000 is 74% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.67 | 20.48 |
| Recency | 13 November 2018 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 75 Watt |
RTX 4000 has a 93.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1650, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months, and 113.3% lower power consumption.
The Quadro RTX 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
