GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro K2200M

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 K2200M

#9

Intel Arc Pro B50

MSRP: $349|Avg: $349

79%

#11

Quadro RTX 4000 (móvel)

MSRP: $900|Avg: $300

75%

#12

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

334%

#16

Radeon PRO W7500

MSRP: $429|Avg: $401

70%

#18

Radeon Pro V520 MxGPU

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $340

69%

#19

RTX A2000 12GB

MSRP: $449|Avg: $380

69%

#20

Radeon Pro Vega 56

MSRP: $399|Avg: $60

69%

#21

RTX A2000

MSRP: $450|Avg: $320

68%

#27

Quadro K2200M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#29

Radeon Pro 5500 XT

MSRP: $199|Avg: $100

90%

#33

Radeon PRO W6400

MSRP: $229|Avg: $200

83%

#36

T600

MSRP: $200|Avg: $180

73%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

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 K2200M 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 122.6% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro K2200M.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro K2200M
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+122.6%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-122.6%)
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	—

💎 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 K2200M Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro K2200M

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 K2200M

The Quadro K2200M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 19 2014. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock speed is 667 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 65W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,535 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro K2200M's 3,535 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 122.6%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro K2200M uses Maxwell, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 640 (Quadro K2200M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.8538 TFLOPS (Quadro K2200M).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro K2200M
G3D Mark Score	7,869+123%	3,535
Architecture	Turing	Maxwell
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896+40%	640
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+249%	0.8538 TFLOPS
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 K2200M
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 K2200M) — the Quadro K2200M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro K2200M
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro K2200M's 65W — a 14.3% difference. The Quadro K2200M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro K2200M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.