Quadro P3000 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
Quadro P3000
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 P3000 is positioned at rank 135 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is on rank 160, so the Quadro P3000 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro P3000
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 P3000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro P3000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro P3000 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design 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 P3000 and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
Quadro P3000
The Quadro P3000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 1 2016. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1506 MHz to 1645 MHz. It has 3840 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,384 points. Launch price was $5,999.
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 P3000 scores 6,384 and the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design reaches 6,574 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro P3000 is built on Pascal while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on 16 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 3,840 (Quadro P3000) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 12.63 TFLOPS (Quadro P3000) vs 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Boost clocks: 1645 MHz vs 1200 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro P3000 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,384 | 6,574+3% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |
| Process Node | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 3840+275% | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 12.63 TFLOPS+414% | 2.458 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1645 MHz+37% | 1200 MHz |
| ROPs | 96+200% | 32 |
| TMUs | 240+275% | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 1.4 MB+40% | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB+200% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro P3000 | 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 P3000 comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design has 4 GB. The Quadro P3000 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 3 MB (Quadro P3000) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design) — the Quadro P3000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro P3000 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB+50% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB+200% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (Quadro P3000) 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 P3000 | 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: 6th Gen NVENC (Pascal) (Quadro P3000) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Decoder: 3rd Gen NVDEC vs NVDEC (4th Gen). Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro P3000) vs H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design).
| Feature | Quadro P3000 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 6th Gen NVENC (Pascal) | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | 3rd Gen NVDEC | NVDEC (4th Gen) |
| Codecs | H.264,HEVC,VP9 | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro P3000 draws 250W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design's 50W — a 133.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro P3000) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | Quadro P3000 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 250W | 50W-80% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 75°C-6% |
| Perf/Watt | 25.5 | 131.5+416% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2016).
| Feature | Quadro P3000 | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $600 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $80 | — |
| Codename | GP102 | TU117 |
| Release | October 1 2016 | April 2 2020 |
| Ranking | #141 | #371 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro P3000 and GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with Max-Q Design
