
GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro K2200

GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Quadro K2200
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 K2200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 uses modern memory architecture. 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 K2200 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 119.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro K2200.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+119.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-119.8%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| 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 | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $40), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 17.2% better value per dollar than the Quadro K2200.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+17.2%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75) | ✅More affordable ($40) |
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 K2200

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 K2200
The Quadro K2200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 22 2014. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1046 MHz to 1124 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 68W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,580 points. Launch price was $395.75.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro K2200's 3,580 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 119.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro K2200 uses Maxwell, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 640 (Quadro K2200). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1.439 TFLOPS (Quadro K2200). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1124 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+120% | 3,580 |
| Architecture | Turing | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+40% | 640 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+107% | 1.439 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+48% | 1124 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+40% | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+180% | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 2 MB (Quadro K2200) — the Quadro K2200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (11_0) (Quadro K2200). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 4th Gen (Quadro K2200). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs NVDEC 1. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro K2200).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | NVENC 4th Gen |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | NVDEC 1 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro K2200's 68W — a 9.8% difference. The Quadro K2200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro K2200). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 203mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 68W-9% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 203mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-7% | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+99% | 52.6 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Quadro K2200 launched at $500 and now averages $40. The Quadro K2200 costs 46.7% less ($35 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 89.5 (Quadro K2200) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 17.2% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2014).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro K2200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-70% | $500 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75 | $40-47% |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+17% | 89.5 |
| Codename | TU117 | GM107 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | July 22 2014 |
| Ranking | #323 | #534 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












