CPU
GPU
Quadro M4000
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti 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 M4000 is positioned at rank 159 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is on rank 160, so the Quadro M4000 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M4000
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti 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 M4000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro M4000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.6% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (8 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 Ti with Max-Q Design.
| Insight | Quadro M4000 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.6%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 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 | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro M4000 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro M4000 and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
Quadro M4000
The Quadro M4000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 18 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 975 MHz to 1013 MHz. It has 1,280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,679 points.
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti 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: 6,574 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro M4000 scores 6,679 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design reaches 6,574 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M4000 is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1 (Quadro M4000) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 2.496 TFLOPS (Quadro M4000) vs 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Boost clocks: 1013 MHz vs 1200 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro M4000 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,679+2% | 6,574 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1,280+25% | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.496 TFLOPS+2% | 2.458 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1013 MHz | 1200 MHz+18% |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 80+25% | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 0.47 MB | 1 MB+113% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro M4000 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti 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 M4000 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design has 4 GB. The Quadro M4000 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 211 GB/s (Quadro M4000) vs 192 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) — a 9.9% advantage for the Quadro M4000. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro M4000) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) — the Quadro M4000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro M4000 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+100% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 211 GB/s+10% | 192 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (Quadro M4000) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro M4000 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) (Quadro M4000) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Decoder: 1st Gen NVDEC vs NVDEC (4th Gen). Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 (Quadro M4000) vs H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design).
| Feature | Quadro M4000 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 5th Gen NVENC (Maxwell) | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | 1st Gen NVDEC | NVDEC (4th Gen) |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M4000 draws 100W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design's 50W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro M4000) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 82°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | Quadro M4000 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W | 50W-50% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 241mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 82°C | 75°C-9% |
| Perf/Watt | 66.8 | 131.5+97% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2015).
| Feature | Quadro M4000 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $791 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $350 | — |
| Codename | GM204 | TU117 |
| Release | August 18 2015 | April 2 2020 |
| Ranking | #392 | #371 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro M4000 and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
