Quadro FX 370 vs GeForce GTX 1650

Quadro FX 370

2008Core: 610 MHz

GeForce GTX 1650

2019Core: 1485 MHzBoost: 1665 MHz

Performance Spectrum - GPU

0.0%

GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB

GeForce GTX 970

GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile

GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU

GeForce GTX 1650

7,869

+9267.9%

GeForce GTX 880M SLI

GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448

GeForce GTX 960

GeForce GTX 1650 (móvel)

GeForce RTX 3050 OEM

GeForce GTX 1080

GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER

GeForce RTX 3070 Ti

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 370 is positioned at rank #373 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower 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 FX 370

#358

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

22728%

#373

Quadro FX 370

MSRP: $129|Avg: $500

100%

#374

Quadro 6000

MSRP: $4399|Avg: $150

94%

#375

RTXA5000-6Q

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $2500

94%

#376

GRID M6-0B

MSRP: $1500|Avg: $100

94%

#377

GRID M10-1B

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $150

92%

#378

Tesla K40c

MSRP: $7699|Avg: $500

89%

#379

Quadro FX 4800

MSRP: $1799|Avg: $80

86%

#380

Tesla M2090

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $40

86%

#381

GRID K2

MSRP: $5199|Avg: $80

82%

#382

GRID K180Q

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $1000

82%

#383

Quadro CX

MSRP: $1999|Avg: $500

72%

#384

GRID P100-8Q

MSRP: $7374|Avg: $550

68%

#385

Quadro FX 350

MSRP: $199|Avg: $15

66%

#386

Quadro FX 550

MSRP: $150|Avg: $10

66%

#387

Tesla M2070

MSRP: $3099|Avg: $50

65%

#388

GRID V100D-8Q

MSRP: $10000|Avg: $10000

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 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 370 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 9267.9% 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 370.

Insight	Quadro FX 370	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-9267.9%)	✅Leading raw performance (+9267.9%)
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	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $500 for the Quadro FX 370, it costs 85% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 62352.4% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	Quadro FX 370	GeForce GTX 1650
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+62352.4%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500)	✅More affordable ($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.

Quadro FX 370 Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Quadro FX 370 and GeForce GTX 1650

Quadro FX 370

The Quadro FX 370 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: 84 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 370 scores 84 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 9267.9%. The Quadro FX 370 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 370) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 370) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	Quadro FX 370	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	84	7,869+9268%
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 370	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 370 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 370) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Quadro FX 370	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%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 10.0 (Quadro FX 370) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: N/A vs 1.4. OpenGL: 2.1 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.

Feature	Quadro FX 370	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	10.0	12+20%
Vulkan	N/A	1.4
OpenGL	2.1	4.6+119%
Max Displays	2	3+50%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: None (Quadro FX 370) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: PureVideo 2 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (Quadro FX 370) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	Quadro FX 370	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	None	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	PureVideo 2	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	MPEG-2	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro FX 370 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 370) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 168mm vs 229mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots.

Feature	Quadro FX 370	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	189W	75W-60%
Recommended PSU	350W	300W-14%
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	None
Length	168mm	229mm
Height	111mm	111mm
Slots	1-50%	2
Temp (Load)	—	70°C
Perf/Watt	0.4	104.9+26125%

💰

Value Analysis

The Quadro FX 370 launched at $129 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 85% less ($425 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.2 (Quadro FX 370) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 52350% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2008).