Quadro FX 570M 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 FX 570M is positioned at rank #404 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 570M

#389

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

73865%

#404

Quadro FX 570M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#405

GRID K340

MSRP: $3299|Avg: $57

100%

#406

Quadro FX 4600

MSRP: $1999|Avg: $50

100%

#407

Quadro FX 5600

MSRP: $2999|Avg: $50

90%

#408

Quadro FX 3500

MSRP: $1599|Avg: $1599

85%

#410

Quadro FX 1400

MSRP: $799|Avg: $30

80%

#411

GRID K1

MSRP: $4140|Avg: $120

80%

#413

GRID P4-1Q

MSRP: $5890|Avg: $185

60%

#416

GRID RTX6000-2Q

MSRP: $6300|Avg: $1500

50%

#417

GRID M60-0B

MSRP: $19900|Avg: $19900

45%

#418

Quadro FX 4500 X2

MSRP: $2799|Avg: $2799

40%

#419

Quadro FX 5500

MSRP: $2999|Avg: $30

40%

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 570M 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 7848.5% 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 570M.

Insight	Quadro FX 570M	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-7848.5%)	✅Leading raw performance (+7848.5%)
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

💎 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 FX 570M Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Quadro FX 570M and GeForce GTX 1650

Quadro FX 570M

The Quadro FX 570M 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: 99 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 570M scores 99 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 7848.5%. The Quadro FX 570M 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 570M) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 570M) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	Quadro FX 570M	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	99	7,869+7848%
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 570M	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 570M 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 570M) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Quadro FX 570M	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%

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro FX 570M 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 570M) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None.

Feature	Quadro FX 570M	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	0.5	104.9+20880%