
GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design vs Tesla M6

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Popular choices:

Tesla M6
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 Tesla M6 is on rank 188, so the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design 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 Tesla M6
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.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Tesla 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.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Tesla 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

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.

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.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Tesla 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)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Tesla 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.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Tesla 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.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Tesla 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.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Tesla 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.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Tesla 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).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design | Tesla 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 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















