GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro K3000M

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 K3000M

#38

Radeon PRO W6600X

MSRP: $699|Avg: $699

93%

#41

Quadro RTX 3000 (móvel)

MSRP: $600|Avg: $600

89%

#42

Radeon Pro W5700

MSRP: $799|Avg: $300

89%

#43

Radeon Pro W5700X

MSRP: $999|Avg: $999

87%

#44

RTX A4000

MSRP: $1111|Avg: $1111

87%

#45

RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell

MSRP: $849|Avg: $748

84%

#46

Quadro RTX 4000

MSRP: $899|Avg: $220

82%

#64

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

730%

#79

Quadro K3000M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#80

T400

MSRP: $180|Avg: $179

99%

#86

Quadro P3200

MSRP: $500|Avg: $63

85%

#89

Quadro P2000

MSRP: $425|Avg: $190

81%

#90

Quadro T1000

MSRP: $400|Avg: $425

80%

#93

Radeon Pro 580

MSRP: $500|Avg: $150

77%

#94

T1000 8GB

MSRP: $500|Avg: $380

76%

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 2012). 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 K3000M 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 386.3% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro K3000M.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro K3000M
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+386.3%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-386.3%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+100%)	❌ 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 K3000M Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro K3000M

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 K3000M

The Quadro K3000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 1 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 654 MHz. It has 576 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,618 points. Launch price was $155.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro K3000M's 1,618 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 386.3%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro K3000M uses Kepler, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 576 (Quadro K3000M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.7534 TFLOPS (Quadro K3000M).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro K3000M
G3D Mark Score	7,869+386%	1,618
Architecture	Turing	Kepler
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896+56%	576
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+296%	0.7534 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	56+17%	48
L1 Cache	896 KB+1767%	48 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro K3000M
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 K3000M has 2 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% 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 0.5 MB (Quadro K3000M) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro K3000M
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+100%	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro K3000M's 75W — a 0% difference. The Quadro K3000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro K3000M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.