Tesla M6 vs GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Tesla M6
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
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. The Tesla M6 is positioned at rank 188 and the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is on rank 65, so the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Tesla M6
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Tesla M6 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Tesla M6.
| Insight | Tesla M6 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Tesla M6 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $84 versus $100 for the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design, it costs 16% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 17.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Tesla M6 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+17.5%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($84) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) |
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 M6 and GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
Tesla M6
The Tesla M6 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 30 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 930 MHz to 1180 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,225 points.
GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 2 2020. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1035 MHz to 1200 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 6,309 points.
Graphics Performance
The Tesla M6 scores 6,225 and the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design reaches 6,309 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Tesla M6 is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (Tesla M6) vs 1,024 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Raw compute: 3.625 TFLOPS (Tesla M6) vs 2.458 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Boost clocks: 1180 MHz vs 1200 MHz.
| Feature | Tesla M6 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 6,225 | 6,309+1% |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1536+50% | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.625 TFLOPS+47% | 2.458 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1180 MHz | 1200 MHz+2% |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 96+50% | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 0.56 MB | 1 MB+79% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Tesla M6 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| 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 video memory. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Tesla M6) vs 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) — the Tesla M6 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Tesla M6 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+100% | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (Tesla M6) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 4.
| Feature | Tesla M6 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Max Displays | 0 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th Gen (Tesla M6) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Decoder: NVDEC 2nd Gen vs NVDEC (4th Gen).
| Feature | Tesla M6 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th Gen | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 2nd Gen | NVDEC (4th Gen) |
| Codecs | — | H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9,H.265 10-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The Tesla M6 draws 100W versus the GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design's 50W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Tesla M6) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Tesla M6 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W | 50W-50% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 1mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 62.3 | 126.2+103% |
Value Analysis
The Tesla M6 costs 16% less ($16 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 74.1 (Tesla M6) vs 63.1 (GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design) — the Tesla M6 offers 17.4% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2015).
| Feature | Tesla M6 | GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1000 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $84-16% | $100 |
| Performance per Dollar | 74.1+17% | 63.1 |
| Codename | GM204 | TU117 |
| Release | August 30 2015 | April 2 2020 |
| Ranking | #388 | #371 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Tesla M6 and GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design
