FirePro W9000 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

CPU

GPU

FirePro W9000

2012Core: 975 MHz

GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

2019Core: 930 MHzBoost: 1125 MHz

Performance Spectrum - GPU

FirePro W9000

274

6,157

0.0%

Radeon HD8970M

Radeon RX 460 (móvel)

Radeon RX 560X (móvel)

GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

6,314

+2.5%

GeForce GTX 1070 (móvel)

GeForce GTX 1070 Ti

GeForce GTX 1080 Ti

GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8GB

About G3D Mark

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FirePro W9000 is positioned at rank 317 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is on rank 5, so the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar FirePro W9000

#302

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

9593%

#317

FirePro W9000

MSRP: $3999|Avg: $150

100%

#318

GRID M60-4Q

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $120

99%

#319

Quadro K6000

MSRP: $5265|Avg: $300

99%

#320

FirePro V8800

MSRP: $1499|Avg: $100

99%

#321

NVS 510

MSRP: $449|Avg: $15

98%

#322

GRID M60-1Q

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $50

96%

#323

FirePro M2000

MSRP: $300|Avg: $50

92%

#324

GRID K280Q

MSRP: $2000|Avg: $50

92%

#325

Tesla K20c

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $500

90%

#326

GRID M6-1Q

MSRP: $1500|Avg: $100

90%

#327

Tesla C2050 / C2070

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $30

89%

#328

Quadro FX 380

MSRP: $129|Avg: $15

89%

#329

FirePro M7740

MSRP: $500|Avg: $500

86%

#330

Quadro FX 570

MSRP: $199|Avg: $15

84%

#331

RTXA5000-24Q

MSRP: $3721|Avg: $2100

84%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

100%

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

90%

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

90%

#13

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

82%

#14

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

81%

#18

Radeon RX 560X (móvel)

MSRP: $55|Avg: $55

80%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is significantly newer (2019 vs 2012). The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FirePro W9000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.5% higher G3D Mark score. However, the FirePro W9000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.

Insight	FirePro W9000	GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.5%)	✅Leading raw performance (+2.5%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020))	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+50%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	Standard Size (279mm)	—

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

FirePro W9000 Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of FirePro W9000 and GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

FirePro W9000

The FirePro W9000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 14 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 975 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 274W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,157 points. Launch price was $3,999.

GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 930 MHz to 1125 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,314 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The FirePro W9000 scores 6,157 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q reaches 6,314 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro W9000 is built on GCN 1.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (FirePro W9000) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q). Raw compute: 3.994 TFLOPS (FirePro W9000) vs 2.304 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q).

Feature	FirePro W9000	GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
G3D Mark Score	6,157	6,314+3%
Architecture	GCN 1.0	Turing
Process Node	28 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	2048+100%	1024
Compute (TFLOPS)	3.994 TFLOPS+73%	2.304 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	128+100%	64
L1 Cache	0.5 MB	1 MB+100%
L2 Cache	0.75 MB	1 MB+33%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	FirePro W9000	GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	FSR 3 (Compatible)
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The FirePro W9000 comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q has 4 GB. The FirePro W9000 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.75 MB (FirePro W9000) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q) — the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	FirePro W9000	GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
VRAM Capacity	6 GB+50%	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR6
Bus Width	256-bit+100%	128-bit
L2 Cache	0.75 MB	1 MB+33%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (FirePro W9000) vs 12 (11_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 6 vs 4.

Feature	FirePro W9000	GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
DirectX	12	12 (11_1)
Vulkan	1.2	1.3+8%
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	6+50%	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VCE 1.0 (FirePro W9000) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q). Decoder: UVD 3.2 vs NVDEC (4th Gen). Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (FirePro W9000) vs H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q).

Feature	FirePro W9000	GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
Encoder	VCE 1.0	NVENC (Turing)
Decoder	UVD 3.2	NVDEC (4th Gen)
Codecs	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2	H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The FirePro W9000 draws 274W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q's 30W — a 160.5% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro W9000) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Mobile. Typical load temperature: 93°C vs 75°C.

Feature	FirePro W9000	GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
TDP	274W	30W-89%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	Mobile
Length	279mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	93°C	75°C-19%
Perf/Watt	22.5	210.5+836%