Quadro FX 4500 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Quadro FX 4500
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. 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
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 4500 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 3366.5% higher G3D Mark score and 700% more VRAM (4 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 4500.
| Insight | Quadro FX 4500 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3366.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3366.5%) |
| 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 (+700%) |
| 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 4500, it costs 85% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 23010.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro FX 4500 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+23010.1%) |
| 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro FX 4500 and GeForce GTX 1650
Quadro FX 4500
The Quadro FX 4500 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: 227 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 4500 scores 227 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 3366.5%. The Quadro FX 4500 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 4500) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 4500) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Quadro FX 4500 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 227 | 7,869+3367% |
| 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 4500 | 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 4500 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Quadro FX 4500) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro FX 4500 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 4 GB+700% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 9_0c (Quadro FX 4500) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 3.
| Feature | Quadro FX 4500 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 9_0c | 12+33% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 3+50% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 4500 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 4500) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 230mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | Quadro FX 4500 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W | 75W-60% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 230mm | 229mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 1.2 | 104.9+8642% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro FX 4500 launched at $0 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): 0.5 (Quadro FX 4500) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 20880% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 4500 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | $75-85% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.5 | 104.9+20880% |
| 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 4500 and GeForce GTX 1650
