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.

GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro K6000 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro K6000: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $5,116 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $5,265 MSRP).
✅Delivers 3378.7% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 1.5 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $5,265 MSRP).
✅Quadro K6000 is already legacy-tier future-proofing, so GeForce GTX 1650 is the less risky modern option long term.
✅Draws 75W instead of 225W, a 150W reduction.
✅Measures 229mm instead of 265mm, a 36mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Quadro K6000 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 12 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.

Quadro K6000

2013

Why buy it

✅19.8% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅200% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (12 GB vs 4 GB).

Trade-offs

❌2013 hardware with 12 GB of VRAM already sits in legacy territory for modern games.
❌
3433.6% HIGHER MSRP
$5,265 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 1.5 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($5,265 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌200% higher power demand at 225W vs 75W.
❌15.7% longer card at 265mm vs 229mm.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

Quadro K6000 is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 19.8% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and by 1.6% in PassMark G3D (7,993 vs 7,869), so the answer here is pretty clean.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce GTX 1650 is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: a 12nm process instead of 28nm and a newer 2019 generation instead of 2013. That makes it the less risky pick as game demands keep moving.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

GeForce GTX 1650 makes the most sense to buy today. It is $5,116 cheaper on MSRP at $149 vs $5,265, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 3378.7% (52.8 vs 1.5), which is enough to swing the recommendation its way. Quadro K6000 still makes more sense if max raw gaming performance matters more than value.

GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro K6000 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

GeForce GTX 1650

The GeForce GTX 1650 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1485 MHz to 1665 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,869 points. Launch price was $149.

Quadro K6000

The Quadro K6000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 23 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 797 MHz to 902 MHz. It has 2880 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,993 points. Launch price was $5,265.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 and the Quadro K6000 reaches 7,993 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro K6000 uses Kepler, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,880 (Quadro K6000). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.196 TFLOPS (Quadro K6000). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 902 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro K6000
G3D Mark Score	7,869	7,993+2%
Architecture	Turing	Kepler
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	2880+221%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	5.196 TFLOPS+74%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+85%	902 MHz
ROPs	32	48+50%
TMUs	56	240+329%
L1 Cache	896 KB+273%	240 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1.5 MB+50%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 1650 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Quadro K6000 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro K6000
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	Upscaling support
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K6000 carries 12 GB. Quadro K6000 gives you 200% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 211 GB/s (Quadro K6000) — a 64.8% advantage for the Quadro K6000. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and 256-bit on the Quadro K6000. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.5 MB (Quadro K6000) — the Quadro K6000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro K6000
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	12 GB+200%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	211 GB/s+65%
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	1.5 MB+50%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 11.0 (Quadro K6000). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro K6000
DirectX	12+9%	11.0
Vulkan	1.4+27%	1.1
OpenGL	4.6+2%	4.5
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 1.0 (Quadro K6000). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs PureVideo HD VP5. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264 (Quadro K6000).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro K6000
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	NVENC 1.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	PureVideo HD VP5
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro K6000's 225W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro K6000). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 265mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro K6000
TDP	75W-67%	225W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	265mm
Height	111mm	110mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	70°C-13%	80°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+195%	35.5

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the Quadro K6000 launched at $5265. On MSRP, GeForce GTX 1650 was 97.2% cheaper ($5116 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.5 (Quadro K6000) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 3420% better value. The newer card here is GeForce GTX 1650 (2019 vs 2013).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro K6000
MSRP	$149-97%	$5265
Performance per Dollar	52.8+3420%	1.5
Codename	TU117	GK110B
Release	April 23 2019	July 23 2013
Ranking	#323	#318

Search GeForce GTX 1650 on Amazon

Search Quadro K6000 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.