Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design vs GeForce GTX 1650
Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design
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 RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is positioned at rank #150 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 RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.2% higher G3D Mark score and 50% more VRAM (6 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 RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.2%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.2%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (6 GB) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro RTX 3000 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 RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design and GeForce GTX 1650
Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design
The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 27 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 600 MHz to 1215 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 60W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 36 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,119 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 RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design scores 8,119 and the GeForce GTX 1650 reaches 7,869 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is built on Turing while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 2,304 (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 5.599 TFLOPS (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1215 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 8,119+3% | 7,869 |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2304+157% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.599 TFLOPS+88% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1215 MHz | 1665 MHz+37% |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 144+157% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 2.3 MB+161% | 0.88 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+300% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The GeForce GTX 1650 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | DLSS 2.0 | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 / AFMF (Compatible) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 4 MB (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB+50% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+300% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 7th Gen (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: NVDEC 4th Gen vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.265,H.264 (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 7th Gen | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th Gen | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | H.265,H.264 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design draws 60W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 22.2% difference. The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 229mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: Unknown vs 70°C.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 60W-20% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 300W-40% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 0mm | 229mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | Unknown-100% | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 135.3+29% | 104.9 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design and GeForce GTX 1650
