Quadro M5000 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Quadro M5000
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 M5000 is positioned at rank #147 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 M5000
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 uses modern memory architecture. 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 M5000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro M5000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 19.5% 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.
| Insight | Quadro M5000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+19.5%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-19.5%) |
| 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 | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $120 for the Quadro M5000, it costs 38% less. While it maintains lower overall performance, this results in a 33.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro M5000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+33.9%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($120) | ✅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 M5000 and GeForce GTX 1650
Quadro M5000
The Quadro M5000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 29 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 861 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 9,406 points. Launch price was $2,856.99.
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 M5000 scores 9,406 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the Quadro M5000 leads by 19.5%. The Quadro M5000 is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (Quadro M5000) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 4.252 TFLOPS (Quadro M5000) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro M5000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 9,406+20% | 7,869 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+129% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.252 TFLOPS+42% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 1665 MHz+60% |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 128+129% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 896 KB+17% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro M5000 | 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 M5000 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The Quadro M5000 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 211 GB/s (Quadro M5000) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 64.8% advantage for the Quadro M5000. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro M5000) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Quadro M5000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro M5000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+100% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 211 GB/s+65% | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Quadro M5000) 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 M5000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.4+27% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 4.0 (Quadro M5000) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP6 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Quadro M5000) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Quadro M5000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 4.0 | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP6 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M5000 draws 150W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Quadro M5000) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 267mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | Quadro M5000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 75W-50% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 300W-40% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 267mm | 229mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 70°C-13% |
| Perf/Watt | 62.7 | 104.9+67% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M5000 launched at $999 MSRP and currently averages $120, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 37.5% less ($45 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 78.4 (Quadro M5000) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 33.8% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2015).
| Feature | Quadro M5000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $999 | $149-85% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $120 | $75-38% |
| Performance per Dollar | 78.4 | 104.9+34% |
| Codename | GM204 | TU117 |
| Release | June 29 2015 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #280 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro M5000 and GeForce GTX 1650
