
Quadro RTX 8000 vs GeForce GTX 1650

Quadro RTX 8000
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. 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 8000
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro RTX 8000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 153.2% higher G3D Mark score and 1100% more VRAM (48 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 8000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+153.2%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-153.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+1100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1650 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $75 versus $9,999 for the Quadro RTX 8000, it costs 99% less. While it maintains significantly lower raw performance, this results in a 5164.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro RTX 8000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+5164.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($9,999) | ✅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.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro RTX 8000 and GeForce GTX 1650

Quadro RTX 8000
The Quadro RTX 8000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 13 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1395 MHz to 1770 MHz. It has 4608 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 260W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 72 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 19,927 points. Launch price was $9,999.

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 8000 scores 19,927 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the Quadro RTX 8000 leads by 153.2%. The Quadro RTX 8000 is built on Turing while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 4,608 (Quadro RTX 8000) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 16.31 TFLOPS (Quadro RTX 8000) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 1770 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 8000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 19,927+153% | 7,869 |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 4608+414% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 16.31 TFLOPS+447% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz+6% | 1665 MHz |
| ROPs | 96+200% | 32 |
| TMUs | 288+414% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 4.5 MB+411% | 0.88 MB |
| L2 Cache | 6 MB+500% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro RTX 8000 | 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 8000 comes with 48 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The Quadro RTX 8000 offers 1100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 768 GB/s (Quadro RTX 8000) vs 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) — a 500% advantage for the Quadro RTX 8000. Bus width: 384-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 6 MB (Quadro RTX 8000) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Quadro RTX 8000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 8000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 48 GB+1100% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 768 GB/s+500% | 128 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 384-bit+200% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 6 MB+500% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.2 (Quadro RTX 8000) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.4. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 8000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.2+2% | 12 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.4+17% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 7.0 (Quadro RTX 8000) vs NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP10 vs NVDEC 4th gen. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro RTX 8000) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650).
| Feature | Quadro RTX 8000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 7.0 | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP10 | NVDEC 4th gen |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro RTX 8000 draws 260W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 110.4% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 650W (Quadro RTX 8000) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: 1x 8-pin + 1x 6-pin vs None. Card length: 267mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 70°C.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 8000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 260W | 75W-71% |
| Recommended PSU | 650W | 300W-54% |
| Power Connector | 1x 8-pin + 1x 6-pin | None |
| Length | 267mm | 229mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 70°C-13% |
| Perf/Watt | 76.6 | 104.9+37% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro RTX 8000 launched at $9999 MSRP and currently averages $9999, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 99.2% less ($9924 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 2.0 (Quadro RTX 8000) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 5145% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | Quadro RTX 8000 | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $9999 | $149-99% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $9999 | $75-99% |
| Performance per Dollar | 2.0 | 104.9+5145% |
| Codename | TU102 | TU117 |
| Release | August 13 2018 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #78 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.










