
GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design vs Quadro M4000M

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Popular choices:

Quadro M4000M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
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 M4000M is on rank 4, so the Quadro M4000M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M4000M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design uses modern memory architecture. 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 M4000M 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. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro M4000M.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.6%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.6%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 1650 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design and Quadro M4000M

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 M4000M
The Quadro M4000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 18 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 975 MHz to 1013 MHz. It has 1,280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,148 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design scores 6,309 and the Quadro M4000M reaches 6,148 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 M4000M uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 1 (Quadro M4000M). Raw compute: 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 2.496 TFLOPS (Quadro M4000M). Boost clocks: 1200 MHz vs 1013 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,309+3% | 6,148 |
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1024 | 1,280+25% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.458 TFLOPS | 2.496 TFLOPS+2% |
| Boost Clock | 1200 MHz+18% | 1013 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 64 | 80+25% |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB+113% | 0.47 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 2 MB (Quadro M4000M) — the Quadro M4000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 12 (12_1) (Quadro M4000M). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs NVENC 5 (Quadro M4000M). Decoder: NVDEC (4th Gen) vs NVDEC 1. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs H.264,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,VC-1,DivX (Quadro M4000M).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (Turing) | NVENC 5 |
| Decoder | NVDEC (4th Gen) | NVDEC 1 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit | H.264,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,VC-1,DivX |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design draws 50W versus the Quadro M4000M's 100W — a 66.7% 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 M4000M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-50% | 100W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C-6% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 126.2+105% | 61.5 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2015).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Quadro M4000M |
|---|---|---|
| Avg Price (30d) | $100 | — |
| Codename | TU117 | GM204 |
| Release | April 2 2020 | August 18 2015 |
| Ranking | #371 | #392 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















