GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design

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.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design

#70

Radeon PRO W6800

MSRP: $2249|Avg: $2249

99%

#72

Quadro P4200

MSRP: $1200|Avg: $110

95%

#74

RTX 5000 Ada Generation

MSRP: $4000|Avg: $4095

83%

#135

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

1622%

#150

Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#151

FirePro M40003

MSRP: $150|Avg: $72

100%

#152

Radeon Pro 465

MSRP: $500|Avg: $150

100%

#154

Tesla P4

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $190

99%

#155

Radeon Pro WX 4150

MSRP: $300|Avg: $120

97%

#158

Quadro M2200

MSRP: $500|Avg: $70

94%

#159

Quadro M4000

MSRP: $791|Avg: $350

93%

#160

FirePro W4100

MSRP: $183|Avg: $183

90%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.2% higher G3D Mark score and 50% more VRAM (6 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 RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.2%)	✅Leading raw performance (+3.2%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	🎮 High Capacity (6 GB)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

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.

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design

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 with Max-Q Design

The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 27 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 600 MHz to 1215 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 60W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 36 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,119 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 and the Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design reaches 8,119 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,304 (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 5.599 TFLOPS (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1215 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design
G3D Mark Score	7,869	8,119+3%
Architecture	Turing	Turing
Process Node	12 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	896	2304+157%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	5.599 TFLOPS+88%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+37%	1215 MHz
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	144+157%
L1 Cache	0.88 MB	2.3 MB+161%
L2 Cache	1 MB	4 MB+300%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	DLSS 2.0
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	FSR 3 / AFMF (Compatible)
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	NVIDIA Reflex

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design has 6 GB. The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design offers 50% 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 4 MB (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design) — the Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	6 GB+50%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	4 MB+300%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 Ultimate (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design
DirectX	12	12 Ultimate
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 7th Gen (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs NVDEC 4th Gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.265,H.264 (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design).

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

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design's 60W — a 22.2% difference. The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs Unknown.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design
TDP	75W	60W-20%
Recommended PSU	300W-40%	500W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	0mm
Height	111mm	0mm
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C	Unknown-100%
Perf/Watt	104.9	135.3+29%