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.

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

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design 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.
❌25% higher power demand at 75W vs 60W.

Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design

2019

Why buy it

✅39.3% 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).
✅Draws 60W instead of 75W, a 15W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 39.3% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and by 3.2% in PassMark G3D (8,119 vs 7,869), so the answer here is pretty clean.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: 6 GB vs 4 GB of VRAM, the newer upscaling stack, DLSS 2 Super Resolution (2020) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack, and 36 vs 0 ray-tracing units. That gives it more room for heavier textures and higher settings over time.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

GeForce GTX 1650 makes the most sense today based on the pricing and value data we have for this matchup. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, GeForce GTX 1650 is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design has the stronger long-term case.

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

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

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design
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 with Max-Q Design carries 6 GB. Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design 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 with Max-Q Design. 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%