CPU
GPU
Quadro K5200
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
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. The Quadro K5200 is positioned at rank 254 and the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is on rank 65, so the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K5200
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is significantly newer (2020 vs 2014). The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro K5200 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.6% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K5200 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro K5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro K5200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $70 versus $100 for the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design, it costs 30% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 39.2% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro K5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+39.2%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($70) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) |
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 K5200 and GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Quadro K5200
The Quadro K5200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 22 2014. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 667 MHz to 771 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,149 points. Launch price was $1,699.74.
GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 2 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1035 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,309 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K5200 scores 6,149 and the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design reaches 6,309 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K5200 is built on Kepler while the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,304 (Quadro K5200) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 3.553 TFLOPS (Quadro K5200) vs 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Boost clocks: 771 MHz vs 1200 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro K5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,149 | 6,309+3% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2304+125% | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.553 TFLOPS+45% | 2.458 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 771 MHz | 1200 MHz+56% |
| ROPs | 48+50% | 32 |
| TMUs | 192+200% | 64 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| 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 K5200 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design has 4 GB. The Quadro K5200 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 211 GB/s (Quadro K5200) vs 112 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) — a 88.4% advantage for the Quadro K5200. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Quadro K5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+100% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 211 GB/s+88% | 112 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K5200 draws 150W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design's 50W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K5200) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro K5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 50W-67% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | — | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 41.0 | 126.2+208% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K5200 costs 30% less ($30 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 87.8 (Quadro K5200) vs 63.1 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) — the Quadro K5200 offers 39.1% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2014).
| Feature | Quadro K5200 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2250 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $70-30% | $100 |
| Performance per Dollar | 87.8+39% | 63.1 |
| Codename | GK110B | TU117 |
| Release | July 22 2014 | April 2 2020 |
| Ranking | #391 | #371 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K5200 and GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
