Quadro P520 vs GeForce GTX 1650
Quadro P520
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 P520 is positioned at rank #111 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Balanced 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 P520
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 286.9% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro P520.
| Insight | Quadro P520 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-286.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+286.9%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $150 for the Quadro P520, it costs 50% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 673.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro P520 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+673.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅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 P520 and GeForce GTX 1650
Quadro P520
The Quadro P520 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 23 2019. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1303 MHz to 1493 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 18W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,034 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 P520 scores 2,034 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 286.9%. The Quadro P520 is built on Pascal while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 14 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 384 (Quadro P520) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 1.147 TFLOPS (Quadro P520) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1493 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro P520 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,034 | 7,869+287% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 896+133% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.147 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS+160% |
| Boost Clock | 1493 MHz | 1665 MHz+12% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 56+133% |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 896 KB+522% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro P520 | 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: 0.5 MB (Quadro P520) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro P520 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro P520 draws 18W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 122.6% difference. The Quadro P520 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro P520) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None.
| Feature | Quadro P520 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 18W-76% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | — | 229mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | — | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 113.0+8% | 104.9 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro P520 launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 50% less ($75 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 13.6 (Quadro P520) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 671.3% better value.
| Feature | Quadro P520 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150 | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $75-50% |
| Performance per Dollar | 13.6 | 104.9+671% |
| Codename | GP108 | TU117 |
| Release | May 23 2019 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #677 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro P520 and GeForce GTX 1650
