CPU
GPU
GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
Popular choices:
Quadro RTX 3000
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 RTX 3000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro RTX 3000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 6.6% higher G3D Mark score and 50% more VRAM (6 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 RTX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-6.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+6.6%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (4 GB) | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $81 versus $891 for the Quadro RTX 3000, it costs 91% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 931.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro RTX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+931.9%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($81) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($891) |
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.
Path of Exile 2
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and Quadro RTX 3000
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 RTX 3000
The Quadro RTX 3000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 13 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1395 MHz to 1770 MHz. It has 4608 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 260W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 72 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,858 points. Launch price was $9,999.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER scores 10,186 versus the Quadro RTX 3000's 10,858 — the Quadro RTX 3000 leads by 6.6%. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is built on Turing while the Quadro RTX 3000 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 1,280 (GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER) vs 4,608 (Quadro RTX 3000). Raw compute: 4.416 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER) vs 16.31 TFLOPS (Quadro RTX 3000). Boost clocks: 1725 MHz vs 1770 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro RTX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 10,186 | 10,858+7% |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280 | 4608+260% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.416 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS+269% |
| Boost Clock | 1725 MHz | 1770 MHz+3% |
| ROPs | 32 | 96+200% |
| TMUs | 80 | 288+260% |
| L1 Cache | 1.3 MB | 4.5 MB+246% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 6 MB+500% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro RTX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | DLSS 2.0 |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | FSR 3 / AFMF (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro RTX 3000 has 6 GB. The Quadro RTX 3000 offers 50% 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 6 MB (Quadro RTX 3000) — the Quadro RTX 3000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro RTX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 6 GB+50% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 6 MB+500% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER) vs 12.1 (Quadro RTX 3000). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.0. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro RTX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3+30% | 1.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: 7th Gen NVENC (GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER) vs 7th Gen NVENC (Quadro RTX 3000). Decoder: 5th Gen NVDEC vs 5th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro RTX 3000).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro RTX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 7th Gen NVENC | 7th Gen NVENC |
| Decoder | 5th Gen NVDEC | 5th Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER draws 100W versus the Quadro RTX 3000's 260W — a 88.9% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER) vs 500W (Quadro RTX 3000). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro RTX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W-62% | 260W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-30% | 500W |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C-12% | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 101.9+144% | 41.8 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER launched at $159 MSRP and currently averages $81, while the Quadro RTX 3000 launched at $800 and now averages $891. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER costs 90.9% less ($810 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 125.8 (GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER) vs 12.2 (Quadro RTX 3000) — the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER offers 931.1% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | Quadro RTX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $159-80% | $800 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $81-91% | $891 |
| Performance per Dollar | 125.8+931% | 12.2 |
| Codename | TU116 | TU102 |
| Release | November 22 2019 | August 13 2018 |
| Ranking | #258 | #78 |
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 RTX 3000
