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 with Max-Q Design 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.

Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design

2019

Why buy it

✅71.7% 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.

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 with Max-Q Design

2019

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

✅71.7% 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.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design 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.

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 with Max-Q Design better than GeForce GTX 1650?

Yes. Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design is the better GPU overall here. You are getting 71.7% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data, 54.7% higher PassMark G3D performance, DLSS 3.5 + Frame Generation, and 8 GB vs 4 GB of VRAM.

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

Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting 54.7% 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 with Max-Q Design is priced in an unclear MSRP range at an unclear MSRP versus $149 MSRP, and you are getting 71.7% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and 54.7% 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 with Max-Q Design 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 with Max-Q Design 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 with Max-Q Design Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design
1080p
low	94 FPS	127 FPS
medium	83 FPS	109 FPS
high	70 FPS	91 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	62 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	103 FPS
medium	74 FPS	85 FPS
high	60 FPS	65 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	45 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	45 FPS
medium	39 FPS	39 FPS
high	27 FPS	28 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	23 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design
1080p
low	136 FPS	174 FPS
medium	113 FPS	139 FPS
high	94 FPS	117 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	100 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	134 FPS
medium	62 FPS	105 FPS
high	44 FPS	90 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	74 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	78 FPS
medium	27 FPS	63 FPS
high	21 FPS	53 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	40 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design
1080p
low	323 FPS	548 FPS
medium	283 FPS	438 FPS
high	205 FPS	365 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	274 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	411 FPS
medium	202 FPS	329 FPS
high	151 FPS	274 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	205 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	274 FPS
medium	117 FPS	219 FPS
high	79 FPS	183 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	137 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design
1080p
low	261 FPS	247 FPS
medium	211 FPS	214 FPS
high	191 FPS	172 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	145 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	189 FPS
medium	158 FPS	167 FPS
high	135 FPS	131 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	108 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	112 FPS
medium	74 FPS	94 FPS
high	65 FPS	76 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	58 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro RTX 4000 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 4000 with Max-Q Design

The Quadro RTX 4000 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 780 MHz to 1380 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 80W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 40 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 12,173 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design's 12,173 — the Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design leads by 54.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,560 (Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7.066 TFLOPS (Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1380 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design
G3D Mark Score	7,869	12,173+55%
Architecture	Turing	Turing
Process Node	12 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	896	2560+186%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	7.066 TFLOPS+137%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+21%	1380 MHz
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	160+186%
L1 Cache	0.88 MB	2.5 MB+184%
L2 Cache	1 MB	4 MB+300%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

A critical advantage for the Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design 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 with Max-Q Design 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 with Max-Q Design
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 with Max-Q Design has 8 GB. The Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design offers 100% 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 4000 with Max-Q Design) — the Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
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 12.2 (Quadro RTX 4000 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 4000 with Max-Q Design
DirectX	12	12.2+2%
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 7th Gen NVENC (Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design). 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 with Max-Q Design).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design
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 with Max-Q Design's 80W — a 6.5% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Quadro RTX 4000 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 80°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro RTX 4000 with Max-Q Design
TDP	75W-6%	80W
Recommended PSU	300W-40%	500W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	0mm
Height	111mm	0mm
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C-13%	80°C
Perf/Watt	104.9	152.2+45%