Quadro FX 3450 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Quadro FX 3450
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650
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. The Quadro FX 3450 is positioned at rank #337 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. 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 Quadro FX 3450
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2008). 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 FX 3450 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 5181.2% higher G3D Mark score and 1500% more VRAM (4 GB vs 256 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 3450.
| Insight | Quadro FX 3450 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-5181.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+5181.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+1500%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $30), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 2012.5% better value per dollar than the Quadro FX 3450.
| Insight | Quadro FX 3450 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+2012.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($75) |
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 Quadro FX 3450 and GeForce GTX 1650
Quadro FX 3450
The Quadro FX 3450 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 610 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 189W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 149 points. Launch price was $3,499.
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 FX 3450 scores 149 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 5181.2%. The Quadro FX 3450 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 55 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 3450) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3450) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3450 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 149 | 7,869+5181% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 896+273% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+380% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80+43% | 56 |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 3450 | 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)
The Quadro FX 3450 comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 1500% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Quadro FX 3450) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3450 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 4 GB+1500% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 3450 draws 189W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 86.4% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 3450) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3450 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W | 75W-60% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | — | 229mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | — | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.8 | 104.9+13013% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro FX 3450 launched at $119 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The Quadro FX 3450 costs 60% less ($45 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 5.0 (Quadro FX 3450) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 1998% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3450 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $119-20% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-60% | $75 |
| Performance per Dollar | 5.0 | 104.9+1998% |
| Codename | GT200B | TU117 |
| Release | November 11 2008 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #815 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro FX 3450 and GeForce GTX 1650
