Quadro K6000 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Quadro K6000
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 K6000 is positioned at rank #319 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 K6000
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 K6000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro K6000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.6% higher G3D Mark score and 200% more VRAM (12 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1650.
| Insight | Quadro K6000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.6%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+200%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (265mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $300 for the Quadro K6000, it costs 75% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 293.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro K6000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+293.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($300) | ✅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 K6000 and GeForce GTX 1650
Quadro K6000
The Quadro K6000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 23 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 797 MHz to 902 MHz. It has 2880 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,993 points. Launch price was $5,265.
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
The Quadro K6000 scores 7,993 and the GeForce GTX 1650 reaches 7,869 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K6000 is built on Kepler while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,880 (Quadro K6000) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 5.196 TFLOPS (Quadro K6000) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 902 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,993+2% | 7,869 |
| Architecture | Kepler | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2880+221% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.196 TFLOPS+74% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 902 MHz | 1665 MHz+85% |
| ROPs | 48+50% | 32 |
| TMUs | 240+329% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 240 KB | 896 KB+273% |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB+50% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | 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 K6000 comes with 12 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The Quadro K6000 offers 200% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 211 GB/s (Quadro K6000) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 64.8% advantage for the Quadro K6000. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (Quadro K6000) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Quadro K6000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 12 GB+200% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 211 GB/s+65% | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB+50% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.0 (Quadro K6000) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.0 | 12+9% |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.4+27% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 1.0 (Quadro K6000) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP5 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264 (Quadro K6000) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 1.0 | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP5 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K6000 draws 225W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K6000) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 265mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 75W-67% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 265mm | 229mm |
| Height | 110mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 70°C-13% |
| Perf/Watt | 35.5 | 104.9+195% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K6000 launched at $5265 MSRP and currently averages $300, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 75% less ($225 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 26.6 (Quadro K6000) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 294.4% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $5265 | $149-97% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $300 | $75-75% |
| Performance per Dollar | 26.6 | 104.9+294% |
| Codename | GK110B | TU117 |
| Release | July 23 2013 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #318 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K6000 and GeForce GTX 1650
