GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro FX 500/FX 600

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 500/FX 600

#410

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

738650%

#425

Quadro FX 500/FX 600

MSRP: $449|Avg: $15

100%

#426

Quadro FX 2000

MSRP: $3000|Avg: $40

50%

#427

GRID V100-8Q

MSRP: $10000|Avg: $10000

0%

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 500/FX 600 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 98262.5% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 500/FX 600.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro FX 500/FX 600
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+98262.5%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-98262.5%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013))
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 GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $15), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 19572.5% better value per dollar than the Quadro FX 500/FX 600.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro FX 500/FX 600
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+19572.5%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($15)

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 500/FX 600 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro FX 500/FX 600

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 500/FX 600

The Quadro FX 500/FX 600 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: 8 points. Launch price was $3,499.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro FX 500/FX 600's 8 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 98262.5%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro FX 500/FX 600 uses Tesla 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 240 (Quadro FX 500/FX 600). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 500/FX 600).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro FX 500/FX 600
G3D Mark Score	7,869+98263%	8
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 500/FX 600
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 GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.25 MB (Quadro FX 500/FX 600) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro FX 500/FX 600
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 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 500/FX 600's 189W — a 86.4% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro FX 500/FX 600). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro FX 500/FX 600
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	0.0

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Quadro FX 500/FX 600 launched at $449 and now averages $15. The Quadro FX 500/FX 600 costs 80% less ($60 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.5 (Quadro FX 500/FX 600) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 20880% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2008).