
Quadro M5500 vs GeForce GTX 1650

Quadro M5500
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 M5500 is positioned at rank #141 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 M5500
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 M5500 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro M5500 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.6% 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.
| Insight | Quadro M5500 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.6%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / 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
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $200 for the Quadro M5500, it costs 63% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 165.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro M5500 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+165.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($200) | ✅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 M5500 and GeForce GTX 1650

Quadro M5500
The Quadro M5500 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 8 2016. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1140 MHz to 1165 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,915 points.

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 M5500 scores 7,915 and the GeForce GTX 1650 reaches 7,869 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M5500 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 M5500) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 4.772 TFLOPS (Quadro M5500) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1165 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro M5500 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,915 | 7,869 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+129% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.772 TFLOPS+60% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1165 MHz | 1665 MHz+43% |
| 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 M5500 | 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 M5500 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The Quadro M5500 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro M5500) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Quadro M5500 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro M5500 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB+100% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (Quadro M5500) 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 M5500 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.4+17% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC (Maxwell) (Quadro M5500) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: NVDEC (Maxwell) vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro M5500) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Quadro M5500 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC (Maxwell) | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | NVDEC (Maxwell) | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M5500 draws 150W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro M5500) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 85 vs 70°C.
| Feature | Quadro M5500 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 75W-50% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 0mm | 229mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 85 | 70°C-18% |
| Perf/Watt | 52.8 | 104.9+99% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M5500 launched at $800 MSRP and currently averages $200, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 62.5% less ($125 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 39.6 (Quadro M5500) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 164.9% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2016).
| Feature | Quadro M5500 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $800 | $149-81% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $200 | $75-63% |
| Performance per Dollar | 39.6 | 104.9+165% |
| Codename | GM204 | TU117 |
| Release | April 8 2016 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #321 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















