GeForce GTX 1650 vs Tesla T4
Aggregate performance score
Tesla T4 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by a substantial 37% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 185 | 255 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 2 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.88 | 18.97 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2021) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 September 2018 (5 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
| Current price | $782 | $185 (1.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Tesla T4 and GTX 1650 have a nearly equal value for money.
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 | 2560 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 585 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 254.4 | 93.24 |
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 | 168 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10000 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320.0 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | no data | + |
API compatibility
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.
Tesla T4 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 37% 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%
Tesla T4 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 37% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
Tesla T4 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 56% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
Tesla T4 outperforms GeForce GTX 1650 by 77% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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 | 90−95
+30.4%
| 69
−30.4%
|
| 1440p | 50−55
+35.1%
| 37
−35.1%
|
| 4K | 30−35
+25%
| 24
−25%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.02 | 20.38 |
| Recency | 13 September 2018 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 75 Watt |
The Tesla T4 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla T4 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
