
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Quadro P1000
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
- ✅90.3% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Quadro P1000: it remains the more sensible modern option while Quadro P1000 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌87.5% higher power demand at 75W vs 40W.
- ❌57.9% longer card at 229mm vs 145mm.
Quadro P1000
2017Why buy it
- ✅Draws 40W instead of 75W, a 35W reduction.
- ✅Measures 145mm instead of 229mm, a 84mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Quadro P1000
2017Why buy it
- ✅90.3% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Quadro P1000: it remains the more sensible modern option while Quadro P1000 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 40W instead of 75W, a 35W reduction.
- ✅Measures 145mm instead of 229mm, a 84mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌87.5% higher power demand at 75W vs 40W.
- ❌57.9% longer card at 229mm vs 145mm.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1650 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Quadro P1000?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
Is Quadro P1000 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 P1000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 47 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 32 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 23 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 16 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 34 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 21 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 13 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 9 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 16 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 11 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 7 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 5 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P1000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 86 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 53 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 39 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 24 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 26 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 19 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 13 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 10 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 7 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 5 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 4 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 3 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P1000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 202 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 162 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 135 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 101 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 152 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 121 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 101 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 76 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 101 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 81 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 67 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 51 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P1000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 202 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 162 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 135 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 101 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 152 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 121 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 101 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 76 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 100 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 73 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 63 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 48 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro P1000

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 P1000
Quadro P1000
The Quadro P1000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 7 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1493 MHz to 1519 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 40W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,495 points. Launch price was $375.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro P1000's 4,495 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 75.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro P1000 uses Pascal, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 640 (Quadro P1000). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.555 TFLOPS (Quadro P1000). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1519 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P1000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+75% | 4,495 |
| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+40% | 640 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+92% | 1.555 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+10% | 1519 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+75% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+367% | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
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 P1000 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P1000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P1000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (12_1) (Quadro P1000). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P1000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 6th Gen NVENC (Pascal) (Quadro P1000). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs 3rd Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,HEVC (Quadro P1000).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P1000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | 6th Gen NVENC (Pascal) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | 3rd Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro P1000's 40W — a 60.9% difference. The Quadro P1000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro P1000). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 145mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P1000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 40W-47% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 145mm |
| Height | 111mm | 69mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9 | 112.4+7% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Quadro P1000 launched at $0. The Quadro P1000 costs 100+% less ($149 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs Infinity (Quadro P1000) — the Quadro P1000 offers Infinity% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P1000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | $0-100% |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8 | Infinity |
| Codename | TU117 | GP107 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | February 7 2017 |
| Ranking | #323 | #466 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













