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

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 4000 (Mobile) across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
❌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.

Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)

2021

Why buy it

✅12.9% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
✅More future proof: Turing (2018−2022) on 12nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 40W instead of 75W, a 35W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)

2021

Why buy it

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

Why buy it

✅12.9% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅Access to a newer frame-generation stack with DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (8 GB vs 4 GB).
✅More future proof: Turing (2018−2022) on 12nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 40W instead of 75W, a 35W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 8 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌No equivalent frame-generation stack like DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023).
❌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.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) better than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes. Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) is the better GPU overall here. You are getting 12.9% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data, 48.9% higher PassMark G3D performance, DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation, and 8 GB vs 4 GB of VRAM. It also comes from 2021 instead of 2019, which helps its case as the more complete modern gaming card.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2021 generation instead of 2019, 48.9% more raw performance headroom, more VRAM at 8 GB instead of 4 GB, and better upscaling support with DLSS 3.5 Super Resolution (2023) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack and better frame-generation support with DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation (2023) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack. That leaves it with more room for heavier textures, tougher ray tracing loads, and higher-end 1440p or 4K gaming over the next few years.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) is priced in an unclear MSRP range at an unclear MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 12.9% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and 48.9% higher G3D Mark. GeForce GTX 1650 still holds the G3D-per-dollar lead, so the performance win comes with a real value premium. If you are comfortable paying the premium for the stronger gaming result, Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) is the one to buy. If staying closer to budget matters more, GeForce GTX 1650 still makes more sense on price alone, but the performance trade-off is much harder to justify by current standards.

Is GeForce GTX 1650 still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1650 is still a strong gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. This mostly comes down to price. If you want to stay closer to $149 MSRP, it remains a strong choice; if you are comfortable paying more, Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) earns that extra money with a clearly stronger gaming result and a more complete overall package.

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.

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)
1080p
low	94 FPS	104 FPS
medium	83 FPS	87 FPS
high	70 FPS	73 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	49 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	90 FPS
medium	74 FPS	74 FPS
high	60 FPS	54 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	36 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	36 FPS
medium	39 FPS	32 FPS
high	27 FPS	20 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	17 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)
1080p
low	136 FPS	108 FPS
medium	113 FPS	85 FPS
high	94 FPS	66 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	51 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	80 FPS
medium	62 FPS	61 FPS
high	44 FPS	48 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	36 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	49 FPS
medium	27 FPS	39 FPS
high	21 FPS	30 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	21 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)
1080p
low	323 FPS	410 FPS
medium	283 FPS	348 FPS
high	205 FPS	276 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	250 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	306 FPS
medium	202 FPS	261 FPS
high	151 FPS	202 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	169 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	196 FPS
medium	117 FPS	171 FPS
high	79 FPS	120 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	80 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)
1080p
low	261 FPS	220 FPS
medium	211 FPS	185 FPS
high	191 FPS	146 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	122 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	167 FPS
medium	158 FPS	142 FPS
high	135 FPS	107 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	87 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	92 FPS
medium	74 FPS	70 FPS
high	65 FPS	56 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	42 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)

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 4000 (Mobile)

The Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 12 2021. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 780 MHz to 1410 MHz. It has 896 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 40W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,715 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)'s 11,715 — the Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) leads by 48.9%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 896 (Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.527 TFLOPS (Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1410 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)
G3D Mark Score	7,869	11,715+49%
Architecture	Turing	Turing
Process Node	12 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	896	896
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+18%	2.527 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+18%	1410 MHz
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	56	56
L1 Cache	896 KB	896 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

A critical advantage for the Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) is support for DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The GeForce GTX 1650 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.The Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) supports the newer DLSS 3.5 Super Resolution, whereas the GeForce GTX 1650 is capped at Upscaling support.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	DLSS 3.5 Super Resolution
Frame Generation	Not Supported	DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation
Ray Reconstruction	No	Yes (DLSS 3.5)
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	NVIDIA Reflex

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) has 8 GB. The Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)
DirectX	12	12.2+2%
Vulkan	1.4+27%	1.1
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 4000 (Mobile)). 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 4000 (Mobile)).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)
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 4000 (Mobile)'s 40W — a 60.9% difference. The Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile) is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Quadro RTX 4000 (Mobile)). 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 4000 (Mobile)
TDP	75W	40W-47%
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	292.9+179%