GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro NVS 420

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

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 5643.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro NVS 420.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro NVS 420
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+5643.8%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-5643.8%)
Longevity	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021))
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 $20), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 1431.7% better value per dollar than the Quadro NVS 420.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro NVS 420
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+1431.7%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75)	✅More affordable ($20)

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 NVS 420 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro NVS 420

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 NVS 420

The Quadro NVS 420 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 21 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1227 MHz to 1647 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 137 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro NVS 420's 137 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 5643.8%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro NVS 420 uses Pascal, both on 12 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,304 (Quadro NVS 420). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7.589 TFLOPS (Quadro NVS 420). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1647 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro NVS 420
G3D Mark Score	7,869+5644%	137
Architecture	Turing	Pascal
Process Node	12 nm	16 nm
Shading Units	896	2304+157%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	7.589 TFLOPS+154%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+1%	1647 MHz
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	144+157%
L1 Cache	896 KB+4%	864 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro NVS 420
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 NVS 420) — the Quadro NVS 420 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro NVS 420
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 10_0 (Quadro NVS 420). Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro NVS 420
DirectX	12+20%	10_0
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs PureVideo HD (Quadro NVS 420). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs PureVideo HD.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro NVS 420
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	PureVideo HD
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	PureVideo HD
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	—

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro NVS 420's 100W — a 28.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro NVS 420). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 160mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro NVS 420
TDP	75W-25%	100W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	160mm
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	70°C	—
Perf/Watt	104.9+7393%	1.4

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Quadro NVS 420 launched at $0 and now averages $20. The Quadro NVS 420 costs 73.3% less ($55 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 6.8 (Quadro NVS 420) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 1442.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).