Quadro RTX 5000 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 Quadro RTX 5000

#63

RTX 4500 Ada Generation

MSRP: $2250|Avg: $2000

184%

#64

RTX 4000 Ada Generation

MSRP: $1999|Avg: $1547

179%

#65

RTX A4000H

MSRP: $1000|Avg: $927

176%

#66

Radeon PRO W7800

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $2200

162%

#67

RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

MSRP: $1999|Avg: $1450

154%

#70

Radeon PRO W6800

MSRP: $2249|Avg: $2249

134%

#72

Quadro P4200

MSRP: $1200|Avg: $110

129%

#74

RTX 5000 Ada Generation

MSRP: $4000|Avg: $4095

113%

#75

Radeon Pro Vega II

MSRP: $2199|Avg: $1800

106%

#76

Radeon PRO W7900

MSRP: $3999|Avg: $3500

105%

#77

Radeon Pro VII

MSRP: $1899|Avg: $1400

104%

#78

Quadro RTX 5000

MSRP: $2299|Avg: $692

100%

#79

Quadro RTX 5000 (móvel)

MSRP: $2299|Avg: $692

100%

#80

Radeon Pro W6800X

MSRP: $2799|Avg: $2799

96%

#81

Tesla T10

MSRP: $2000|Avg: $975

93%

#82

RTX A5000

MSRP: $3721|Avg: $1800

92%

#83

Radeon Pro Vega 64X

MSRP: $2200|Avg: $2200

90%

#84

Radeon PRO V710

MSRP: $2000|Avg: $2000

89%

#85

RTX A5500

MSRP: $3600|Avg: $2200

87%

#86

Radeon Pro WX 9100

MSRP: $2199|Avg: $550

83%

#87

A10G

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $2000

81%

#88

Tesla T4

MSRP: $1880|Avg: $1000

80%

#89

Tesla M40 24GB

MSRP: $2000|Avg: $120

79%

#90

Quadro P5000

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $400

76%

#91

RTX PRO 6000

MSRP: $8565|Avg: $8565

75%

#92

RTX A6000

MSRP: $4649|Avg: $3500

73%

#93

Quadro RTX A6000

MSRP: $4649|Avg: $3500

73%

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 Quadro RTX 5000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 96.3% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (16 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 5000	GeForce GTX 1650
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+96.3%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-96.3%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022))	Turing (2018−2022) (12nm)
Ecosystem	✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+300%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $692 for the Quadro RTX 5000, it costs 89% less. While it maintains lower overall performance, this results in a 370.1% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	Quadro RTX 5000	GeForce GTX 1650
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+370.1%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($692)	✅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.

Quadro RTX 5000 Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Quadro RTX 5000 and GeForce GTX 1650

Quadro RTX 5000

The Quadro RTX 5000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 13 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1620 MHz to 1815 MHz. It has 3072 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 230W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 48 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 15,443 points. Launch price was $2,299.

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 RTX 5000 scores 15,443 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the Quadro RTX 5000 leads by 96.3%. The Quadro RTX 5000 is built on Turing while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 3,072 (Quadro RTX 5000) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 11.15 TFLOPS (Quadro RTX 5000) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1815 MHz vs 1665 MHz.

Feature	Quadro RTX 5000	GeForce GTX 1650
G3D Mark Score	15,443+96%	7,869
Architecture	Turing	Turing
Process Node	12 nm	12 nm
Shading Units	3072+243%	896
Compute (TFLOPS)	11.15 TFLOPS+274%	2.984 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1815 MHz+9%	1665 MHz
ROPs	64+100%	32
TMUs	192+243%	56
L1 Cache	3 MB+241%	0.88 MB
L2 Cache	4 MB+300%	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Quadro RTX 5000	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	NVIDIA Reflex	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Quadro RTX 5000 comes with 16 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The Quadro RTX 5000 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 448 GB/s (Quadro RTX 5000) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 250% advantage for the Quadro RTX 5000. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 4 MB (Quadro RTX 5000) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Quadro RTX 5000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Quadro RTX 5000	GeForce GTX 1650
VRAM Capacity	16 GB+300%	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	448 GB/s+250%	128 GB/s
Bus Width	256-bit+100%	128-bit
L2 Cache	4 MB+300%	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (Quadro RTX 5000) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.

Feature	Quadro RTX 5000	GeForce GTX 1650
DirectX	12 Ultimate	12
Vulkan	1.4	1.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	4+33%	3

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC (7th Gen) (Quadro RTX 5000) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: NVDEC (4th Gen) vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: H.264,HEVC,AV1 (Decode),VP9 (Quadro RTX 5000) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).

Feature	Quadro RTX 5000	GeForce GTX 1650
Encoder	NVENC (7th Gen)	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)
Decoder	NVDEC (4th Gen)	NVDEC 4th gen
Codecs	H.264,HEVC,AV1 (Decode),VP9	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro RTX 5000 draws 230W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 101.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 650W (Quadro RTX 5000) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 70°C.

Feature	Quadro RTX 5000	GeForce GTX 1650
TDP	230W	75W-67%
Recommended PSU	650W	300W-54%
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	None
Length	—	229mm
Height	—	111mm
Slots	2	2
Temp (Load)	75°C	70°C-7%
Perf/Watt	67.1	104.9+56%

💰

Value Analysis

The Quadro RTX 5000 launched at $2299 MSRP and currently averages $692, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 89.2% less ($617 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 22.3 (Quadro RTX 5000) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 370.4% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).