GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro FX 2700M
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Quadro FX 2700M
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 2700M
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 2700M 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 2044.1% 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 2700M.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro FX 2700M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2044.1%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2044.1%) |
| 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro FX 2700M
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 2700M
The Quadro FX 2700M 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: 367 points. Launch price was $3,499.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro FX 2700M's 367 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 2044.1%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro FX 2700M uses Tesla 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 240 (Quadro FX 2700M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 2700M).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro FX 2700M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+2044% | 367 |
| 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 2700M |
|---|---|---|
| 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 2700M 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 2700M) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro FX 2700M |
|---|---|---|
| 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 2700M's 189W — a 86.4% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro FX 2700M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro FX 2700M |
|---|---|---|
| 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+5421% | 1.9 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2008).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro FX 2700M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75 | — |
| Codename | TU117 | GT200B |
| Release | April 23 2019 | November 11 2008 |
| Ranking | #323 | #815 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro FX 2700M
