GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro FX 2500M

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 FX 2500M

#110

Quadro GV100

MSRP: $8999|Avg: $8999

97%

#111

Tesla P40

MSRP: $5699|Avg: $150

95%

#112

GRID RTX6000-1Q

MSRP: $6299|Avg: $1500

92%

#113

Quadro RTX 8000

MSRP: $9999|Avg: $9999

91%

#114

Quadro GP100

MSRP: $7000|Avg: $1335

90%

#267

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

6777%

#282

Quadro FX 2500M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#283

Quadro K4000

MSRP: $1269|Avg: $100

98%

#285

GRID P4-2Q

MSRP: $1500|Avg: $235

97%

#287

Tesla C2070

MSRP: $1499|Avg: $38

95%

#289

Quadro 2000 D

MSRP: $599|Avg: $35

95%

#290

FirePro V5900

MSRP: $599|Avg: $15

94%

#291

FirePro S9000

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $156

93%

#294

GRID P40-4Q

MSRP: $3000|Avg: $150

91%

#295

RTXA5000-8Q

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $2500

90%

#296

GRID P6-2Q

MSRP: $2000|Avg: $150

90%

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 2008). 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 FX 2500M 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 3509.6% higher G3D Mark score and 700% more VRAM (4 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 2500M.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro FX 2500M
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+3509.6%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-3509.6%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+700%)	❌ 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 FX 2500M Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro FX 2500M

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 FX 2500M

The Quadro FX 2500M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 610 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 189W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 218 points. Launch price was $3,499.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro FX 2500M's 218 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 3509.6%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro FX 2500M uses Tesla 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 240 (Quadro FX 2500M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 2500M).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro FX 2500M
G3D Mark Score	7,869+3510%	218
Architecture	Turing	Tesla 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	55 nm
Shading Units	896+273%	240
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+380%	0.6221 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	56	80+43%
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro FX 2500M
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 FX 2500M has 512 MB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 700% 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 0.25 MB (Quadro FX 2500M) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro FX 2500M
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+700%	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro FX 2500M's 189W — a 86.4% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro FX 2500M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro FX 2500M
TDP	75W-60%	189W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	—
Temp (Load)	70°C	—
Perf/Watt	104.9+8642%	1.2