
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro M5500

GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Quadro M5500
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 M5500
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1650 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro M5500 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro M5500 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.6% 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.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.6%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $200 for the Quadro M5500, it costs 63% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 165.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+165.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($200) |
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 and Quadro M5500

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 M5500
The Quadro M5500 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 8 2016. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1140 MHz to 1165 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,915 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 and the Quadro M5500 reaches 7,915 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro M5500 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,048 (Quadro M5500). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4.772 TFLOPS (Quadro M5500). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1165 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 7,915 |
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2048+129% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 4.772 TFLOPS+60% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+43% | 1165 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 128+129% |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+17% | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro M5500 has 8 GB. The Quadro M5500 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) vs 2 MB (Quadro M5500) — the Quadro M5500 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| 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 M5500). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.4+17% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC (Maxwell) (Quadro M5500). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs NVDEC (Maxwell). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro M5500).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | NVENC (Maxwell) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | NVDEC (Maxwell) |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,H.265,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro M5500's 150W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro M5500). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-50% | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-18% | 85 |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+99% | 52.8 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Quadro M5500 launched at $800 and now averages $200. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 62.5% less ($125 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 39.6 (Quadro M5500) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 164.9% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2016).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-81% | $800 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-63% | $200 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+165% | 39.6 |
| Codename | TU117 | GM204 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | April 8 2016 |
| Ranking | #323 | #321 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















