Tesla K40c vs GeForce GTX 1650
Tesla K40c
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 Tesla K40c is positioned at rank #378 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 Tesla K40c
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2013). The GeForce GTX 1650 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Tesla K40c lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 75.1% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Tesla K40c.
| Insight | Tesla K40c | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-75.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+75.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| 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 $500 for the Tesla K40c, it costs 85% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 1067.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Tesla K40c | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+1067.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) | ✅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 Tesla K40c and GeForce GTX 1650
Tesla K40c
The Tesla K40c is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 8 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 745 MHz to 876 MHz. It has 2880 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 245W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,495 points. Launch price was $7,699.
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 Tesla K40c scores 4,495 versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 7,869 — the GeForce GTX 1650 leads by 75.1%. The Tesla K40c is built on Kepler while the GeForce GTX 1650 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,880 (Tesla K40c) vs 896 (GeForce GTX 1650). Raw compute: 5.046 TFLOPS (Tesla K40c) vs 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650). Boost clocks: 876 MHz vs 1665 MHz.
| Feature | Tesla K40c | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,495 | 7,869+75% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2880+221% | 896 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.046 TFLOPS+69% | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 876 MHz | 1665 MHz+90% |
| ROPs | 48+50% | 32 |
| TMUs | 240+329% | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 240 KB | 896 KB+273% |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB+50% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Tesla K40c | 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)
The Tesla K40c comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1650 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (Tesla K40c) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) — the Tesla K40c has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Tesla K40c | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB+50% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11_0 (Tesla K40c) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1650). Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 3.
| Feature | Tesla K40c | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11_0 | 12+9% |
| Max Displays | 0 | 3 |
Power & Dimensions
The Tesla K40c draws 245W versus the GeForce GTX 1650's 75W — a 106.3% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Tesla K40c) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1650). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 267mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | Tesla K40c | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 245W | 75W-69% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 267mm | 229mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 70°C |
| Perf/Watt | 18.3 | 104.9+473% |
Value Analysis
The Tesla K40c launched at $7699 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 and now averages $75. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 85% less ($425 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 9.0 (Tesla K40c) vs 104.9 (GeForce GTX 1650) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 1065.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).
| Feature | Tesla K40c | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $7699 | $149-98% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | $75-85% |
| Performance per Dollar | 9.0 | 104.9+1066% |
| Codename | GK180 | TU117 |
| Release | October 8 2013 | April 23 2019 |
| Ranking | #465 | #323 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Tesla K40c and GeForce GTX 1650
