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 RTX 3000 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 RTX 3000: 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 $651 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $800 MSRP).
✅Delivers 289.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 13.6 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $800 MSRP).
✅Draws 75W instead of 260W, a 185W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Quadro RTX 3000 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌No DLSS support; it relies on Upscaling support instead.
❌Older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.

Quadro RTX 3000

2018

Why buy it

✅114.8% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Access to DLSS 2 Super Resolution (2020).
✅50% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 4 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Older hardware, 6 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in newer AAA releases.
❌
436.9% HIGHER MSRP
$800 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 13.6 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($800 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌246.7% higher power demand at 260W vs 75W.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

Quadro RTX 3000 is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 114.8% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and by 38% in PassMark G3D (10,858 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 newer 2019 generation instead of 2018. 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 $651 cheaper on MSRP at $149 vs $800, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 289.1% (52.8 vs 13.6), which is enough to swing the recommendation its way. Quadro RTX 3000 still makes more sense if max raw gaming performance matters more than value.

GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro RTX 3000 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 RTX 3000

The Quadro RTX 3000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 13 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1395 MHz to 1770 MHz. It has 4608 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 260W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 72 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,858 points. Launch price was $9,999.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro RTX 3000's 10,858 — the Quadro RTX 3000 leads by 38%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro RTX 3000 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4,608 (Quadro RTX 3000). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 16.31 TFLOPS (Quadro RTX 3000). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1770 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 3000
G3D Mark Score	7,869	10,858+38%
Architecture	Turing	Turing
Process Node	12 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	896	4608+414%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	16.31 TFLOPS+447%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz	1770 MHz+6%
ROPs	32	96+200%
TMUs	56	288+414%
L1 Cache	0.88 MB	4.5 MB+411%
L2 Cache	1 MB	6 MB+500%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The Quadro RTX 3000 supports the newer DLSS 2 Super Resolution, whereas the GeForce GTX 1650 is capped at Upscaling support.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 3000
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	DLSS 2 Super Resolution
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	NVIDIA Reflex

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro RTX 3000 carries 6 GB. Quadro RTX 3000 gives you 50% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GTX 1650 and 256-bit on the Quadro RTX 3000. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 6 MB (Quadro RTX 3000) — the Quadro RTX 3000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 3000
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	6 GB+50%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	6 MB+500%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.1 (Quadro RTX 3000). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.0. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 3000
DirectX	12	12.1
Vulkan	1.4+40%	1.0
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7th Gen NVENC (Quadro RTX 3000). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs 5th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro RTX 3000).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 3000
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	7th Gen NVENC
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	5th Gen NVDEC
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro RTX 3000's 260W — a 110.4% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Quadro RTX 3000). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 85°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 3000
TDP	75W-71%	260W
Recommended PSU	300W-40%	500W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	0mm
Height	111mm	0mm
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C-18%	85°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+151%	41.8

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the GeForce GTX 1650 came in at $149, while the Quadro RTX 3000 launched at $800. On MSRP, GeForce GTX 1650 was 81.4% cheaper ($651 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 13.6 (Quadro RTX 3000) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 288.2% better value. The newer card here is GeForce GTX 1650 (2019 vs 2018).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 3000
MSRP	$149-81%	$800
Performance per Dollar	52.8+288%	13.6
Codename	TU117	TU102
Release	April 23 2019	August 13 2018
Ranking	#323	#78

Search GeForce GTX 1650 on Amazon

Search Quadro RTX 3000 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.