CPU
GPU
Quadro P2000
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)
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 P2000 is positioned at rank 89 and the GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) is on rank 50, so the GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro P2000
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro P2000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro P2000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro P2000 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+25%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $190 for the Quadro P2000, it costs 61% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 153.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro P2000 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+153.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($190) | ✅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 P2000 and GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)
Quadro P2000
The Quadro P2000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 6 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1076 MHz to 1480 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,964 points. Launch price was $585.
GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)
The GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1350 MHz to 1485 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,968 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro P2000 scores 6,964 and the GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) reaches 6,968 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro P2000 is built on Pascal while the GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) uses Turing, both on 16 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (Quadro P2000) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)). Raw compute: 3.031 TFLOPS (Quadro P2000) vs 3.041 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)). Boost clocks: 1480 MHz vs 1485 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro P2000 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,964 | 6,968 |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |
| Process Node | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1024 | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.031 TFLOPS | 3.041 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1480 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| ROPs | 40+25% | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 0.38 MB | 1 MB+163% |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB+25% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro P2000 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| 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 P2000 comes with 5 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) has 4 GB. The Quadro P2000 offers 25% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1.25 MB (Quadro P2000) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)) — the Quadro P2000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro P2000 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 5 GB+25% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB+25% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.0 (Quadro P2000) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Quadro P2000 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.3+18% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 6.0 (Quadro P2000) vs NVENC 6th Gen (Volta/Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP8 vs NVDEC 4th Gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro P2000) vs H.264,H.265,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)).
| Feature | Quadro P2000 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 6.0 | NVENC 6th Gen (Volta/Turing) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP8 | NVDEC 4th Gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | H.264,H.265,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro P2000 draws 75W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)'s 50W — a 40% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro P2000) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 201mm vs 0mm, occupying 1 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | Quadro P2000 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 50W-33% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 201mm | 0mm |
| Height | 112mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | — | 87 |
| Perf/Watt | 92.9 | 139.4+50% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) costs 60.5% less ($115 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 36.7 (Quadro P2000) vs 92.9 (GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)) — the GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) offers 153.1% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2017).
| Feature | Quadro P2000 | GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile) |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $425 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $190 | $75-61% |
| Performance per Dollar | 36.7 | 92.9+153% |
| Codename | GP106 | TU116 |
| Release | February 6 2017 | April 23 2020 |
| Ranking | #346 | #324 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro P2000 and GeForce GTX 1650 (Mobile)
