GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design vs Quadro K5200

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. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is positioned at rank 65 and the Quadro K5200 is on rank 254, so the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

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

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design

#19

Radeon RX 5600

MSRP: $229|Avg: $150

98%

#22

Radeon RX 7700

MSRP: $449|Avg: $399

94%

#55

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

206%

#57

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

187%

#58

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

187%

#62

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

170%

#63

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

169%

#65

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

100%

#66

GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

100%

#68

GeForce GTX 850M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $40

97%

#78

Radeon HD 8970M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $170

92%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Quadro K5200

#106

L40S

MSRP: $7500|Avg: $7500

98%

#107

Quadro P6000

MSRP: $5999|Avg: $1500

95%

#237

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

5411%

#252

L2

MSRP: $2000|Avg: $1500

100%

#253

FirePro W8100

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $200

100%

#254

Quadro K5200

MSRP: $2250|Avg: $70

100%

#256

Quadro K2000D

MSRP: $599|Avg: $35

98%

#257

FirePro V7800

MSRP: $759|Avg: $96

98%

#258

FirePro W8000

MSRP: $1599|Avg: $1599

97%

#259

Quadro K2000

MSRP: $599|Avg: $500

97%

#260

GRID P4-8Q

MSRP: $2000|Avg: $200

97%

#262

FirePro 3D V5800

MSRP: $479|Avg: $30

94%

#263

GRID M40

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $100

92%

#264

GRID P40-8Q

MSRP: $3000|Avg: $150

92%

#265

GRID M3-3020

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $50

92%

#266

FirePro V3800

MSRP: $129|Avg: $12

91%

#267

FirePro V5800

MSRP: $479|Avg: $15

90%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is significantly newer (2020 vs 2014). The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro K5200 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.6% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K5200 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	Quadro K5200
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+2.6%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.6%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Kepler (2012−2018))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+100%)
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	—	—

💎 Value Proposition

The Quadro K5200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $70 versus $100 for the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design, it costs 30% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 39.2% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	Quadro K5200
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+39.2%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100)	✅More affordable ($70)

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 with Max-Q Design Benchmark Check

Quadro K5200 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design and Quadro K5200

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design

The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 2 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1035 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,309 points.

Quadro K5200

The Quadro K5200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 22 2014. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 667 MHz to 771 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,149 points. Launch price was $1,699.74.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design scores 6,309 and the Quadro K5200 reaches 6,149 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is built on Turing while the Quadro K5200 uses Kepler, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 2,304 (Quadro K5200). Raw compute: 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 3.553 TFLOPS (Quadro K5200). Boost clocks: 1200 MHz vs 771 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	Quadro K5200
G3D Mark Score	6,309+3%	6,149
Architecture	Turing	Kepler
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	1024	2304+125%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.458 TFLOPS	3.553 TFLOPS+45%
Boost Clock	1200 MHz+56%	771 MHz
ROPs	32	48+50%
TMUs	64	192+200%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	Quadro K5200
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K5200 has 8 GB. The Quadro K5200 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 112 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 211 GB/s (Quadro K5200) — a 88.4% advantage for the Quadro K5200. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	Quadro K5200
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	112 GB/s	211 GB/s+88%
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design draws 50W versus the Quadro K5200's 150W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 350W (Quadro K5200). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design	Quadro K5200
TDP	50W-67%	150W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Slots	0	—
Temp (Load)	75°C	—
Perf/Watt	126.2+208%	41.0

💰

Value Analysis

The Quadro K5200 costs 30% less ($30 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 63.1 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 87.8 (Quadro K5200) — the Quadro K5200 offers 39.1% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2014).