GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro RTX 4000
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:
Quadro RTX 4000
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 RTX 4000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro RTX 4000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 89.7% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (8 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-89.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+89.7%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $220 for the Quadro RTX 4000, it costs 66% less. While it maintains lower overall performance, this results in a 54.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+54.7%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($75) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($220) |
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 RTX 4000
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 RTX 4000
The Quadro RTX 4000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 13 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1005 MHz to 1545 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 160W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 36 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 14,925 points. Launch price was $899.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro RTX 4000's 14,925 — the Quadro RTX 4000 leads by 89.7%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro RTX 4000 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2,304 (Quadro RTX 4000). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 7.119 TFLOPS (Quadro RTX 4000). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1545 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 14,925+90% |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 2304+157% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 7.119 TFLOPS+139% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz+8% | 1545 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 56 | 144+157% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 2.3 MB+161% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the Quadro RTX 4000 is support for DLSS 3 Frame Gen. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The GeForce GTX 1650 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | DLSS 3.5 |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | DLSS 3.0 (Native) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | Yes (DLSS 3.5) |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro RTX 4000 has 8 GB. The Quadro RTX 4000 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 448 GB/s (Quadro RTX 4000) — a 250% advantage for the Quadro RTX 4000. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4 MB (Quadro RTX 4000) — the Quadro RTX 4000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 448 GB/s+250% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 4 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (Quadro RTX 4000). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.4+27% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 7.0 (Quadro RTX 4000). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs PureVideo HD VP10. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro RTX 4000).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | NVENC 7.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | PureVideo HD VP10 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro RTX 4000's 160W — a 72.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 500W (Quadro RTX 4000). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 241mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-53% | 160W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-40% | 500W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 241mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+12% | 93.3 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP and currently averages $75, while the Quadro RTX 4000 launched at $899 and now averages $220. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 65.9% less ($145 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 67.8 (Quadro RTX 4000) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 54.7% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-83% | $899 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $75-66% | $220 |
| Performance per Dollar | 104.9+55% | 67.8 |
| Codename | TU117 | TU104 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | November 13 2018 |
| Ranking | #323 | #154 |
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 RTX 4000
