GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
VS
Tesla M6

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design vs Tesla M6

NVIDIA

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design

2020Core: 1035 MHzBoost: 1200 MHz
VS
NVIDIA

Tesla M6

2015Core: 930 MHzBoost: 1180 MHz

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 Tesla M6 is on rank 188, 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
187%
#58
187%
#62
GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50
170%
#63
Radeon RX 6300
MSRP: $60|Avg: $40
169%
#65
100%
#66
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 Tesla M6

#82
RTX A5000
MSRP: $3721|Avg: $1800
99%
#83
Radeon Pro Vega 64X
MSRP: $2200|Avg: $2200
98%
#84
Radeon PRO V710
MSRP: $2000|Avg: $2000
96%
#85
RTX A5500
MSRP: $3600|Avg: $2200
94%
#86
Radeon Pro WX 9100
MSRP: $2199|Avg: $550
89%
#87
A10G
MSRP: $2500|Avg: $2000
87%
#173
Tesla K20m
MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55
2371%
#188
Tesla M6
MSRP: $1000|Avg: $84
100%
#190
CMP 30HX
MSRP: $799|Avg: $60
98%
#191
FirePro W2100
MSRP: $139|Avg: $30
98%
#193
FirePro M6000
MSRP: $300|Avg: $50
97%
#196
FirePro M4170
MSRP: $200|Avg: $80
94%
#197
GRID K140Q
MSRP: $125|Avg: $500
93%
#200
Radeon Pro Duo
MSRP: $1499|Avg: $799
89%
#201
P102-100
MSRP: $600|Avg: $80
88%
#203
Quadro FX 2700
MSRP: $100|Avg: $50
87%
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 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 Tesla M6 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 1.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Tesla M6.

InsightGeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q DesignTesla M6
Performance
Leading raw performance (+1.3%)
Lower raw frame rates (-1.3%)
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
📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The Tesla M6 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $84 versus $100 for the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design, it costs 16% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 17.5% higher cost efficiency score.

InsightGeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q DesignTesla M6
Cost Efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Better overall value (+17.5%)
Upfront Cost
⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100)
More affordable ($84)

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 Tesla M6

NVIDIA

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.

NVIDIA

Tesla M6

The Tesla M6 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 30 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 930 MHz to 1180 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,225 points.

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design scores 6,309 and the Tesla M6 reaches 6,225 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is built on Turing while the Tesla M6 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 1,536 (Tesla M6). Raw compute: 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 3.625 TFLOPS (Tesla M6). Boost clocks: 1200 MHz vs 1180 MHz.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q DesignTesla M6
G3D Mark Score
6,309+1%
6,225
Architecture
Turing
Maxwell 2.0
Process Node
12 nm
28 nm
Shading Units
1024
1536+50%
Compute (TFLOPS)
2.458 TFLOPS
3.625 TFLOPS+47%
Boost Clock
1200 MHz+2%
1180 MHz
ROPs
32
64+100%
TMUs
64
96+50%
L1 Cache
1 MB+79%
0.56 MB
L2 Cache
1 MB
2 MB+100%

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q DesignTesla M6
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 (Tesla M6) — the Tesla M6 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q DesignTesla M6
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 (Tesla M6). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 0.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q DesignTesla M6
DirectX
12 (12_1)
12
Max Displays
4
0
🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs NVENC 5th Gen (Tesla M6). Decoder: NVDEC (4th Gen) vs NVDEC 2nd Gen.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q DesignTesla M6
Encoder
NVENC (Turing)
NVENC 5th Gen
Decoder
NVDEC (4th Gen)
NVDEC 2nd Gen
Codecs
H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design draws 50W versus the Tesla M6'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 (Tesla M6). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q DesignTesla M6
TDP
50W-50%
100W
Recommended PSU
350W
350W
Power Connector
PCIe-powered
PCIe-powered
Length
1mm
Slots
0
0
Temp (Load)
75°C
Perf/Watt
126.2+103%
62.3
💰

Value Analysis

The Tesla M6 costs 16% less ($16 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 63.1 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) vs 74.1 (Tesla M6) — the Tesla M6 offers 17.4% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2015).

FeatureGeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q DesignTesla M6
MSRP
$1000
Avg Price (30d)
$100
$84-16%
Performance per Dollar
63.1
74.1+17%
Codename
TU117
GM204
Release
April 2 2020
August 30 2015
Ranking
#371
#388