Component comparison

GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro T1000

GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro T1000 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.

Advantages

A GeForce GTX 1650
  • + Release year (+1)
  • + CUDA cores (+256)
  • + Energy efficiency (+2.3)
  • + PassMark (overall) (+603)
  • + Geekbench OpenCL (+5303)
  • + Geekbench Vulkan (+6523)
  • + Normalized score (+7.4)
B Quadro T1000
  • + Memory clock (MHz) (+6500 MHz)

Detailed spec comparison

Spec Component A
GeForce GTX 1650
 Component B
Quadro T1000
Release year 2020 (+1) 2019
VRAM (GB) 4 GB 4 GB
Memory type GDDR6 GDDR5
Memory clock (MHz) 1500 MHz 8000 MHz (+6500 MHz)
Bandwidth (GB/s) 128 GB/s —
Memory bus (bit) 128 bit 128 bit
TGP / TDP (W) 50 W 50 W
Lithography (nm) 12 nm 12 nm
Transistors (M) 4,700M —
Die size (mm²) 200 mm² —
Base clock (MHz) — —
Boost clock (MHz) — 1455 MHz
CUDA cores 1,024 (+256) 768
TMUs 64 —
ROPs 32 —
RT cores — —
Tensor cores — —
FP32 performance (TFLOPS) 2.30 TFLOPS —
Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) 53.28 GPixel/s —
Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) 93.24 GTexel/s —
Energy efficiency 26.4 (+2.3) 24.1
PassMark (overall) 7,116 (+603) 6,513
3DMark Time Spy 3,488 —
3DMark Fire Strike 9,313 —
Geekbench OpenCL 39,153 (+5303) 33,850
Geekbench Vulkan 36,248 (+6523) 29,725
Normalized score 53.3 (+7.4) 45.9

In both

CUDA

FPS in games (1080p)

Game GeForce GTX 1650 Quadro T1000 Delta
Anno 1800 34 FPS 37 FPS 8.8% (B)
Apex Legends 67 FPS 58 FPS +15.5% (A)
Assassin´s Creed Odyssey 35 FPS 35 FPS ≈
Battlefield 5 60 FPS 38 FPS +57.9% (A)
Borderlands 3 36 FPS 38 FPS 5.6% (B)
CS:GO 240 FPS 240 FPS ≈
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2019 51 FPS 51 FPS ≈
Control 32 FPS 31 FPS +3.2% (A)
Dirt Rally 2.0 69 FPS 64 FPS +7.8% (A)
Doom Eternal 63 FPS 64 FPS 1.6% (B)
Dota 2 96 FPS 113 FPS 17.7% (B)
Escape from Tarkov 80 FPS 68 FPS +17.6% (A)
F1 2019 70 FPS 61 FPS +14.8% (A)
FIFA 19 94 FPS 114 FPS 21.3% (B)
FIFA 20 148 FPS 160 FPS 8.1% (B)
Far Cry 5 60 FPS 57 FPS +5.3% (A)
Far Cry New Dawn 44 FPS 46 FPS 4.5% (B)
Farming Simulator 19 98 FPS 86 FPS +14% (A)
Final Fantasy XV Benchmark 32 FPS 31 FPS +3.2% (A)
For Honor 77 FPS 64 FPS +20.3% (A)
GRID 2019 52 FPS 65 FPS 25% (B)
GTA V 140 FPS 140 FPS ≈
GTA V 68 FPS 94 FPS 38.2% (B)
Gears Tactics 61 FPS 58 FPS +5.2% (A)
Ghost Recon Breakpoint 44 FPS 47 FPS 6.8% (B)
Ghost Recon Wildlands 57 FPS 44 FPS +29.5% (A)
Hunt Showdown 46 FPS 44 FPS +4.5% (A)
Kingdom Come: Deliverance 53 FPS 41 FPS +29.3% (A)
Metro Exodus 33 FPS 32 FPS +3.1% (A)
Need for Speed Heat 51 FPS 52 FPS 2% (B)
Overwatch 240 FPS 240 FPS ≈
PUBG 140 FPS 140 FPS ≈
Rage 2 46 FPS 46 FPS ≈
Rainbow Six Siege 154 FPS 112 FPS +37.5% (A)
Red Dead Redemption 2 32 FPS 30 FPS +6.7% (A)
Rise of the Tomb Raider 58 FPS 53 FPS +9.4% (A)
Rocket League 96 FPS 117 FPS 21.9% (B)
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 59 FPS 40 FPS +47.5% (A)
Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order 60 FPS 58 FPS +3.4% (A)
The Division 2 46 FPS 36 FPS +27.8% (A)
The Witcher 3 45 FPS 53 FPS 17.8% (B)
Total War: Three Kingdoms 39 FPS 38 FPS +2.6% (A)
X-Plane 11.11 45 FPS 57 FPS 26.7% (B)

Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.

Based on the comparison: GeForce GTX 1650 wins 7 of the comparable criteria. The choice depends on your use case.

🤔 How to choose

Universal advice for any use case.

  • Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
  • Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
  • Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).
All reviews