GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro M4000M

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 M4000M

#1

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

144%

#4

Quadro M4000M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

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 M4000M 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 28% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro M4000M.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro M4000M
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+28%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-28%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019))
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 M4000M Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro M4000M

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 M4000M

The Quadro M4000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 18 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 975 MHz to 1013 MHz. It has 1,280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,148 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro M4000M's 6,148 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 28%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro M4000M uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1 (Quadro M4000M). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.496 TFLOPS (Quadro M4000M). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1013 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro M4000M
G3D Mark Score	7,869+28%	6,148
Architecture	Turing	Maxwell 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	896	1,280+43%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS+20%	2.496 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+64%	1013 MHz
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	80+43%
L1 Cache	896 KB+87%	480 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro M4000M
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 video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Quadro M4000M) — the Quadro M4000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro M4000M
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12 (12_1) (Quadro M4000M). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro M4000M
DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Vulkan	1.4+8%	1.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 5 (Quadro M4000M). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs NVDEC 1. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs H.264,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,VC-1,DivX (Quadro M4000M).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro M4000M
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	NVENC 5
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	NVDEC 1
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	H.264,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,VC-1,DivX

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro M4000M's 100W — a 28.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro M4000M). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro M4000M
TDP	75W-25%	100W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	—
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	70°C-13%	80°C
Perf/Watt	104.9+71%	61.5