
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
Popular choices:

Quadro P4000 (móvel)
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.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
2012Why buy it
- ✅Costs $669 less on MSRP ($150 MSRP vs $819 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 447.8% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 50.2 vs 9.2 G3D/$ ($150 MSRP vs $819 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 50W instead of 100W, a 50W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2012-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
Quadro P4000 (móvel)
2017Why buy it
- ✅More future proof: Pascal (2016−2021) on 16nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌446% HIGHER MSRP$819 MSRPvs$150 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 9.2 vs 50.2 G3D/$ ($819 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
- ❌100% higher power demand at 100W vs 50W.
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
2012Quadro P4000 (móvel)
2017Why buy it
- ✅Costs $669 less on MSRP ($150 MSRP vs $819 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 447.8% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 50.2 vs 9.2 G3D/$ ($150 MSRP vs $819 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 50W instead of 100W, a 50W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅More future proof: Pascal (2016−2021) on 16nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2012-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Poor future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
- ❌446% HIGHER MSRP$819 MSRPvs$150 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 9.2 vs 50.2 G3D/$ ($819 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
- ❌100% higher power demand at 100W vs 50W.
Quick Answers
So, is GeForce GTX 1650 Ti better than Quadro P4000 (móvel)?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
When does Quadro P4000 (móvel) make more sense than GeForce GTX 1650 Ti?
Games Benchmarks
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 9800X3D 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
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 45 FPS | 106 FPS |
| medium | 31 FPS | 91 FPS |
| high | 22 FPS | 77 FPS |
| ultra | 11 FPS | 45 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 92 FPS |
| medium | 22 FPS | 81 FPS |
| high | 12 FPS | 60 FPS |
| ultra | 6 FPS | 35 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 11 FPS | 29 FPS |
| medium | 8 FPS | 27 FPS |
| high | 4 FPS | 19 FPS |
| ultra | 3 FPS | 16 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 223 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 190 FPS |
| high | 42 FPS | 145 FPS |
| ultra | 30 FPS | 116 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 69 FPS | 166 FPS |
| medium | 35 FPS | 137 FPS |
| high | 25 FPS | 110 FPS |
| ultra | 20 FPS | 86 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 32 FPS | 96 FPS |
| medium | 18 FPS | 77 FPS |
| high | 14 FPS | 64 FPS |
| ultra | 11 FPS | 48 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 339 FPS | 338 FPS |
| medium | 271 FPS | 270 FPS |
| high | 226 FPS | 225 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 169 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 254 FPS | 253 FPS |
| medium | 203 FPS | 202 FPS |
| high | 169 FPS | 169 FPS |
| ultra | 127 FPS | 127 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 169 FPS | 169 FPS |
| medium | 135 FPS | 135 FPS |
| high | 113 FPS | 112 FPS |
| ultra | 85 FPS | 84 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 157 FPS | 203 FPS |
| medium | 118 FPS | 166 FPS |
| high | 95 FPS | 145 FPS |
| ultra | 67 FPS | 115 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 90 FPS | 142 FPS |
| medium | 68 FPS | 117 FPS |
| high | 58 FPS | 102 FPS |
| ultra | 39 FPS | 81 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 48 FPS | 79 FPS |
| medium | 34 FPS | 65 FPS |
| high | 29 FPS | 53 FPS |
| ultra | 19 FPS | 39 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and Quadro P4000 (móvel)

GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in October 9 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 928 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,525 points. Launch price was $149.

Quadro P4000 (móvel)
Quadro P4000 (móvel)
The Quadro P4000 (móvel) is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 11 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1227 MHz to 1228 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,500 points. Launch price was $819.61.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti scores 7,525 and the Quadro P4000 (móvel) reaches 7,500 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is built on Kepler while the Quadro P4000 (móvel) uses Pascal, both on 28 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 768 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 1,792 (Quadro P4000 (móvel)). Raw compute: 1.425 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 4.398 TFLOPS (Quadro P4000 (móvel)).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,525 | 7,500 |
| Architecture | Kepler | Pascal |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 1792+133% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.425 TFLOPS | 4.398 TFLOPS+209% |
| ROPs | 16 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 64 | 112+75% |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 672 KB+950% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 2 MB+700% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Quadro P4000 (móvel) relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | Upscaling support |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR6. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 2 MB (Quadro P4000 (móvel)) — the Quadro P4000 (móvel) has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 2 MB+700% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 12 (12_1) (Quadro P4000 (móvel)). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 0.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 6 (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs NVENC (6th Gen) (Quadro P4000 (móvel)). Decoder: NVDEC 4 vs NVDEC (3rd Gen). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs H.264,H.265,VP9 (Quadro P4000 (móvel)).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 6 (Volta) | NVENC (6th Gen) |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4 | NVDEC (3rd Gen) |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 | H.264,H.265,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti draws 50W versus the Quadro P4000 (móvel)'s 100W — a 66.7% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 0W (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 350W (Quadro P4000 (móvel)). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 0mm, occupying 0 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 75.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-50% | 100W |
| Recommended PSU | 0W-100% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 0mm |
| Height | 0mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | 75 |
| Perf/Watt | 150.5+101% | 75.0 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti launched at $150 MSRP, while the Quadro P4000 (móvel) launched at $819. The GeForce GTX 1650 Ti costs 81.7% less ($669 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 50.2 (GeForce GTX 1650 Ti) vs 9.2 (Quadro P4000 (móvel)) — the GeForce GTX 1650 Ti offers 445.7% better value. The Quadro P4000 (móvel) is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | Quadro P4000 (móvel) |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150-82% | $819 |
| Performance per Dollar | 50.2+446% | 9.2 |
| Codename | GK106 | GP104 |
| Release | October 9 2012 | January 11 2017 |
| Ranking | #633 | #326 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












