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 M4000 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 M4000: 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

✅+17.8% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅Costs $642 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $791 MSRP).
✅Delivers 525.5% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 8.4 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $791 MSRP).
✅Quadro M4000 is already legacy-tier future-proofing, so GeForce GTX 1650 is the less risky modern option long term.
✅Draws 75W instead of 100W, a 25W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Quadro M4000 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 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 M4000

2015

Why buy it

✅5.3% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (6,679 vs 7,869).
❌2015 hardware with 8 GB of VRAM already sits in legacy territory for modern games.
❌
430.9% HIGHER MSRP
$791 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 8.4 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($791 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌33.3% higher power demand at 100W vs 75W.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

Quadro M4000 is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 5.3% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. PassMark G3D leans toward GeForce GTX 1650 instead at 7,869 vs 6,679, so for this question the real-game FPS result matters more than the synthetic split.

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 2015. 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 $642 cheaper on MSRP at $149 vs $791, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 525.5% (52.8 vs 8.4), which is enough to swing the recommendation its way. Quadro M4000 still makes more sense if max raw gaming performance matters more than value.

GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro M4000 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 M4000

The Quadro M4000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 18 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 975 MHz to 1013 MHz. It has 1,280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,679 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro M4000's 6,679 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 17.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro M4000 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1 (Quadro M4000). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.496 TFLOPS (Quadro M4000). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1013 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro M4000
G3D Mark Score	7,869+18%	6,679
Architecture	Turing	Maxwell 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	1,280+43%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+20%	2.496 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+64%	1013 MHz
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	80+43%
L1 Cache	896 KB+87%	480 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 1650 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Quadro M4000 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro M4000
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 M4000 carries 8 GB. Quadro M4000 gives you 100% 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 M4000) — a 64.8% advantage for the Quadro M4000. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and 256-bit on the Quadro M4000. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Quadro M4000) — the Quadro M4000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro M4000
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	128 GB/s	211 GB/s+65%
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (12_1) (Quadro M4000). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro M4000
DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Vulkan	1.4	1.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) (Quadro M4000). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs 1st Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 (Quadro M4000).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro M4000
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell)
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	1st Gen NVDEC
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro M4000's 100W — a 28.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro M4000). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 241mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 82°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro M4000
TDP	75W-25%	100W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	241mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	70°C-15%	82°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+57%	66.8

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the Quadro M4000 launched at $791. On MSRP, GeForce GTX 1650 was 81.2% cheaper ($642 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 8.4 (Quadro M4000) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 528.6% better value. The newer card here is GeForce GTX 1650 (2019 vs 2015).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro M4000
MSRP	$149-81%	$791
Performance per Dollar	52.8+529%	8.4
Codename	TU117	GM204
Release	April 23 2019	August 18 2015
Ranking	#323	#392

Search GeForce GTX 1650 on Amazon

Search Quadro M4000 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.