GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro P500
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Quadro P500
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 P500
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 374.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro P500.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P500 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+374.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-374.3%) |
| 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 | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $500 for the Quadro P500, it costs 85% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 3062.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P500 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+3062.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) |
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 P500
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 P500
The Quadro P500 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 5 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1455 MHz to 1518 MHz. It has 256 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 18W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,659 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro P500's 1,659 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 374.3%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro P500 uses Pascal, both on 12 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 256 (Quadro P500). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 0.7772 TFLOPS (Quadro P500). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1518 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P500 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869+374% | 1,659 |
| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 896+250% | 256 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS+284% | 0.7772 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+10% | 1518 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+250% | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+833% | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P500 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 0.5 MB (Quadro P500) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P500 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 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 P500's 18W — a 122.6% difference. The Quadro P500 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro P500). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P500 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 18W-76% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+14% | 92.2 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Quadro P500 launched at $500 and now averages $500. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 85% less ($425 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 3.3 (Quadro P500) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 3078.8% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro P500 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-70% | $500 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-85% | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+3079% | 3.3 |
| Codename | TU117 | GP108 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | January 5 2018 |
| Ranking | #323 | #740 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro P500
