Quadro NVS 420 vs GeForce GTX 1650

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.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 5643.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro NVS 420.

Insight	Quadro NVS 420	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-5643.8%)	✅Leading raw performance (+5643.8%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021))	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $75 (vs $20), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 1431.7% better value per dollar than the Quadro NVS 420.

Insight	Quadro NVS 420	GeForce GTX 1650
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+1431.7%)
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($20)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($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.

Quadro NVS 420 Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Quadro NVS 420 and GeForce GTX 1650

Quadro NVS 420

The Quadro NVS 420 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 21 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1227 MHz to 1647 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 137 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

In G3D Mark, the Quadro NVS 420 scores 137 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 5643.8%. The Quadro NVS 420 is built on Pascal while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 16 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,304 (Quadro NVS 420) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 7.589 TFLOPS (Quadro NVS 420) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1647 MHz vs 1665 MHz.

Feature	Quadro NVS 420	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	137	7,869+5644%
Architecture	Pascal	Turing
Process Node	16 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	2304+157%	896
Compute (TFLOPS)	7.589 TFLOPS+154%	2.984 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1647 MHz	1665 MHz+1%
ROPs	64+100%	32
TMUs	144+157%	56
L1 Cache	864 KB	896 KB+4%
L2 Cache	2 MB+100%	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Quadro NVS 420	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)

Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro NVS 420) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Quadro NVS 420 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Quadro NVS 420	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	128-bit+100%
L2 Cache	2 MB+100%	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 10_0 (Quadro NVS 420) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.

Feature	Quadro NVS 420	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	10_0	12+20%
Max Displays	4+33%	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: PureVideo HD (Quadro NVS 420) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: PureVideo HD vs NVDEC 4th gen.

Feature	Quadro NVS 420	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	PureVideo HD	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	PureVideo HD	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	—	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro NVS 420 draws 100W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 28.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro NVS 420) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 160mm vs 229mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots.

Feature	Quadro NVS 420	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	100W	75W-25%
Recommended PSU	350W	300W-14%
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	None
Length	160mm	229mm
Height	—	111mm
Slots	1-50%	2
Temp (Load)	—	70°C
Perf/Watt	1.4	104.9+7393%

💰

Value Analysis

The Quadro NVS 420 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $20, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The Quadro NVS 420 costs 73.3% less ($55 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 6.8 (Quadro NVS 420) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 1442.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).