Quadro K2000D vs GeForce GTX 1650
Quadro K2000D
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 K2000D is positioned at rank #257 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 K2000D
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2013). 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 K2000D 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 391.8% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro K2000D.
| Insight | Quadro K2000D | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-391.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+391.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| 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. Although it costs $75 (vs $35), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 129.5% better value per dollar than the Quadro K2000D.
| Insight | Quadro K2000D | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+129.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($35) | ⚠️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 K2000D and GeForce GTX 1650
Quadro K2000D
The Quadro K2000D is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 1 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 954 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 51W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,600 points. Launch price was $599.
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 K2000D scores 1,600 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 391.8%. The Quadro K2000D is built on Kepler while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (Quadro K2000D) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 0.7327 TFLOPS (Quadro K2000D) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Quadro K2000D | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,600 | 7,869+392% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 896+133% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7327 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+307% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 32 | 56+75% |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 896 KB+2700% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K2000D | 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 K2000D comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Quadro K2000D) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro K2000D | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (Quadro K2000D) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Quadro K2000D | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.4+17% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 1st Gen (Quadro K2000D) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: NVDEC 1st Gen vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro K2000D) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Quadro K2000D | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 1st Gen | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 1st Gen | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K2000D draws 51W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 38.1% difference. The Quadro K2000D is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K2000D) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 202mm vs 229mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80 vs 70°C.
| Feature | Quadro K2000D | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 51W-32% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 202mm | 229mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80 | 70°C-13% |
| Perf/Watt | 31.4 | 104.9+234% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K2000D launched at $599 MSRP and currently averages $35, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The Quadro K2000D costs 53.3% less ($40 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 45.7 (Quadro K2000D) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 129.5% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).
| Feature | Quadro K2000D | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $599 | $149-75% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $35-53% | $75 |
| Performance per Dollar | 45.7 | 104.9+130% |
| Codename | GK107 | TU117 |
| Release | March 1 2013 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #750 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K2000D and GeForce GTX 1650
