GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro 3000M

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.

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

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Quadro 3000M

#62

RTX A4500

MSRP: $1699|Avg: $800

99%

#63

RTX 4500 Ada Generation

MSRP: $2250|Avg: $2000

99%

#64

RTX 4000 Ada Generation

MSRP: $1999|Avg: $1547

96%

#65

RTX A4000H

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $927

94%

#66

Radeon PRO W7800

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $2200

87%

#105

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

1181%

#120

Quadro 3000M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#124

Radeon Pro W5500X

MSRP: $599|Avg: $500

98%

#125

Quadro T2000

MSRP: $600|Avg: $75

97%

#130

FirePro D300

MSRP: $500|Avg: $20

91%

#131

Radeon Pro WX 3200

MSRP: $199|Avg: $199

89%

#132

Radeon Pro WX 5100

MSRP: $499|Avg: $120

88%

#134

Quadro P2000 (móvel)

MSRP: $500|Avg: $150

86%

#135

Quadro P3000 (móvel)

MSRP: $600|Avg: $200

85%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2011). The GeForce GTX 1650 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro 3000M lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 686.1% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro 3000M.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro 3000M
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+686.1%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-686.1%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+100%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 1650 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.

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Quadro 3000M Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro 3000M

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 3000M

The Quadro 3000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 22 2011. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 450 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,001 points. Launch price was $398.96.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro 3000M's 1,001 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 686.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro 3000M uses Fermi, both on 12 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 240 (Quadro 3000M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.432 TFLOPS (Quadro 3000M).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro 3000M
G3D Mark Score	7,869+686%	1,001
Architecture	Turing	Fermi
Process Node	12 nm	40 nm
Shading Units	896+273%	240
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+591%	0.432 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	56+40%	40
L1 Cache	896 KB+180%	320 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro 3000M
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 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro 3000M has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 MB (Quadro 3000M) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro 3000M
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro 3000M's 75W — a 0% difference. The Quadro 3000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro 3000M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.