
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Quadro M4000M
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.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Why buy it
- ✅+28% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Quadro M4000M: it remains the more sensible modern option while Quadro M4000M is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 100W, a 25W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Quadro M4000M
2015Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (6,148 vs 7,869).
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌33.3% higher power demand at 100W vs 75W.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Quadro M4000M
2015Why buy it
- ✅+28% higher PassMark G3D performance.
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Quadro M4000M: it remains the more sensible modern option while Quadro M4000M is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 100W, a 25W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (6,148 vs 7,869).
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌33.3% higher power demand at 100W vs 75W.
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Quadro M4000M?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Quadro M4000M still worth buying for gaming in 2026?
Games Benchmarks
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 9800X3D 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
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 102 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 88 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 70 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 42 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 89 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 77 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 55 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 32 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 28 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 26 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 17 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 15 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 210 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 173 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 128 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 154 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 123 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 96 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 72 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 84 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 67 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 54 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 40 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 277 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 221 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 184 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 138 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 207 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 166 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 138 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 104 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 138 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 111 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 92 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 69 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 180 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 146 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 131 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 102 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 128 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 107 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 97 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 74 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 75 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 58 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 48 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 35 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro M4000M

GeForce GTX 1650
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 M4000M
Quadro M4000M
The Quadro M4000M 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: 6,148 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro M4000M's 6,148 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 28%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro M4000M uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1 (Quadro M4000M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.496 TFLOPS (Quadro M4000M). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1013 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+28% | 6,148 |
| 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 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Quadro M4000M relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | Upscaling support |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Quadro M4000M) — the Quadro M4000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| 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 M4000M). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 5 (Quadro M4000M). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs NVDEC 1. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,VC-1,DivX (Quadro M4000M).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | NVENC 5 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | NVDEC 1 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,VC-1,DivX |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro M4000M's 100W — a 28.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro M4000M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-25% | 100W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+71% | 61.5 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | — |
| Codename | TU117 | GM204 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | August 18 2015 |
| Ranking | #323 | #392 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













