GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs Quadro P4200
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
Popular choices:
Quadro P4200
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Quadro P4200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro P4200 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.9% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (8 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro P4200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.9%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (4 GB) | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $81 versus $110 for the Quadro P4200, it costs 26% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 33.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro P4200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+33.3%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($81) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($110) |
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and Quadro P4200
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 22 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1530 MHz to 1725 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,186 points.
Quadro P4200
The Quadro P4200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 21 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1227 MHz to 1647 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,376 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER scores 10,186 and the Quadro P4200 reaches 10,376 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is built on Turing while the Quadro P4200 uses Pascal, both on 12 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER) vs 2,304 (Quadro P4200). Raw compute: 4.416 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER) vs 7.589 TFLOPS (Quadro P4200). Boost clocks: 1725 MHz vs 1647 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro P4200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 10,186 | 10,376+2% |
| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280 | 2304+80% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.416 TFLOPS | 7.589 TFLOPS+72% |
| Boost Clock | 1725 MHz+5% | 1647 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 80 | 144+80% |
| L1 Cache | 1.3 MB+55% | 0.84 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro P4200 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro P4200 has 8 GB. The Quadro P4200 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER) vs 2 MB (Quadro P4200) — the Quadro P4200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro P4200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER) vs 12 (Quadro P4200). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro P4200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: 7th Gen NVENC (GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER) vs NVENC 6th Gen (Quadro P4200). Decoder: 5th Gen NVDEC vs NVDEC 3rd Gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER) vs H.265,H.264,VP9 (Quadro P4200).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro P4200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 7th Gen NVENC | NVENC 6th Gen |
| Decoder | 5th Gen NVDEC | NVDEC 3rd Gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | H.265,H.264,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER draws 100W versus the Quadro P4200's 100W — a 0% difference. The Quadro P4200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER) vs 500W (Quadro P4200). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 105mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 80.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro P4200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W | 100W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-30% | 500W |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 105mm |
| Height | 111mm | 82mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C-6% | 80 |
| Perf/Watt | 101.9 | 103.8+2% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER launched at $159 MSRP and currently averages $81, while the Quadro P4200 launched at $1200 and now averages $110. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER costs 26.4% less ($29 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 125.8 (GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER) vs 94.3 (Quadro P4200) — the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER offers 33.4% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro P4200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $159-87% | $1200 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $81-26% | $110 |
| Performance per Dollar | 125.8+33% | 94.3 |
| Codename | TU116 | GP104 |
| Release | November 22 2019 | February 21 2018 |
| Ranking | #258 | #266 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and Quadro P4200
