Quadro 5010M vs GeForce GTX 1650

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. The Quadro 5010M is positioned at rank #19 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Excellent cost-benefit for your build. 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 Quadro 5010M

#4

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

262%

#9

Intel Arc Pro B50

MSRP: $349|Avg: $349

62%

#19

Quadro 5010M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#26

RTX A400

MSRP: $135|Avg: $135

79%

#29

Radeon Pro 5500 XT

MSRP: $199|Avg: $100

71%

#33

Radeon PRO W6400

MSRP: $229|Avg: $200

65%

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

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2011). 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 5010M 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 365.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro 5010M.

Insight	Quadro 5010M	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-365.3%)	✅Leading raw performance (+365.3%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014))	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
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.

Quadro 5010M Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Quadro 5010M and GeForce GTX 1650

Quadro 5010M

The Quadro 5010M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 22 2011. It features the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 450 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,691 points.

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.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the Quadro 5010M scores 1,691 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 365.3%. The Quadro 5010M is built on Fermi 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 40 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (Quadro 5010M) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 0.6912 TFLOPS (Quadro 5010M) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	Quadro 5010M	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	1,691	7,869+365%
Architecture	Fermi 2.0	Turing
Process Node	40 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	384	896+133%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.6912 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS+332%
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	48	56+17%
L1 Cache	768 KB	896 KB+17%
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	1 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Quadro 5010M	GeForce GTX 1650
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	FSR 3 (Compatible)
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (Quadro 5010M) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Quadro 5010M	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	128-bit+100%
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	1 MB+100%

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro 5010M draws 100W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 28.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro 5010M) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None.

Feature	Quadro 5010M	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	100W	75W-25%
Recommended PSU	350W	300W-14%
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	None
Length	—	229mm
Height	—	111mm
Slots	—	2
Temp (Load)	—	70°C
Perf/Watt	16.9	104.9+521%