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

2019

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Quadro P4000 Max-Q: it remains the more sensible modern option while Quadro P4000 Max-Q is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 75W instead of 100W, a 25W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Quadro P4000 Max-Q across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Quadro P4000 Max-Q

2017

Why buy it

✅6.1% more average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌33.3% higher power demand at 100W vs 75W.

GeForce GTX 1650

2019

Quadro P4000 Max-Q

2017

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅Less risky long-term buy than Quadro P4000 Max-Q: it remains the more sensible modern option while Quadro P4000 Max-Q is already legacy-tier future-proofing.
✅Draws 75W instead of 100W, a 25W reduction.

Why buy it

✅6.1% more average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Quadro P4000 Max-Q across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.

Trade-offs

❌Poor future-proofing: 2017-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already a legacy-tier option for modern games.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 52.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
❌33.3% higher power demand at 100W vs 75W.

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1650 better than Quadro P4000 Max-Q?

Yes, but this is not really about a huge raw performance gap. Quadro P4000 Max-Q averages 6.1% more FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data. The broader synthetic picture is also very close at 7,869 vs 7,500 in G3D Mark. The bigger reason to prefer GeForce GTX 1650 is the overall package: you are getting a newer generation, no meaningful modern upscaling stack, plus much lower power draw (75W vs 100W).

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce GTX 1650 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2019 generation instead of 2017 and a 12nm process instead of 16nm. That makes it the safer long-run choice for modern games.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

GeForce GTX 1650 can still make sense if you find it at the right price, especially around $149 MSRP. GeForce GTX 1650 is still the smarter buy for most people, though, because the raw performance is close while the overall package is cleaner. GeForce GTX 1650 is priced in an unclear MSRP range at $149 MSRP versus an unclear MSRP, and you are getting lower estimated average FPS across 49 tracked games in our benchmark data and 4.9% higher G3D Mark. Moving to $149 MSRP gets you newer hardware, lower power draw (75W vs 100W), and no meaningful modern upscaling stack.

Is Quadro P4000 Max-Q still worth buying for gaming in 2026?

Yes. Quadro P4000 Max-Q is still a strong gaming card in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. Price is really the swing factor here. If you find it at or below an unclear MSRP, it remains a very sensible buy. GeForce GTX 1650 is still the safer recommendation for most fresh builds because it offers a cleaner overall package with newer hardware and no meaningful modern upscaling stack.

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.

GeForce GTX 1650 Benchmark Check

Quadro P4000 Max-Q Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro P4000 Max-Q
1080p
low	94 FPS	82 FPS
medium	83 FPS	71 FPS
high	70 FPS	60 FPS
ultra	58 FPS	40 FPS
1440p
low	87 FPS	72 FPS
medium	74 FPS	63 FPS
high	60 FPS	47 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	30 FPS
4K
low	41 FPS	26 FPS
medium	39 FPS	24 FPS
high	27 FPS	17 FPS
ultra	24 FPS	14 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Quadro P4000 Max-Q

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro P4000 Max-Q
1080p
low	136 FPS	210 FPS
medium	113 FPS	180 FPS
high	94 FPS	137 FPS
ultra	71 FPS	110 FPS
1440p
low	79 FPS	160 FPS
medium	62 FPS	134 FPS
high	44 FPS	107 FPS
ultra	35 FPS	85 FPS
4K
low	36 FPS	94 FPS
medium	27 FPS	77 FPS
high	21 FPS	64 FPS
ultra	15 FPS	49 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Quadro P4000 Max-Q

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro P4000 Max-Q
1080p
low	323 FPS	338 FPS
medium	283 FPS	270 FPS
high	205 FPS	225 FPS
ultra	169 FPS	169 FPS
1440p
low	225 FPS	253 FPS
medium	202 FPS	202 FPS
high	151 FPS	169 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	127 FPS
4K
low	130 FPS	169 FPS
medium	117 FPS	135 FPS
high	79 FPS	112 FPS
ultra	50 FPS	84 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Quadro P4000 Max-Q

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro P4000 Max-Q
1080p
low	261 FPS	162 FPS
medium	211 FPS	133 FPS
high	191 FPS	116 FPS
ultra	166 FPS	98 FPS
1440p
low	201 FPS	118 FPS
medium	158 FPS	99 FPS
high	135 FPS	87 FPS
ultra	113 FPS	73 FPS
4K
low	99 FPS	67 FPS
medium	74 FPS	54 FPS
high	65 FPS	42 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	32 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1650 Open Quadro P4000 Max-Q

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro P4000 Max-Q

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.

Quadro P4000 Max-Q

The Quadro P4000 Max-Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 11 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1114 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.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 and the Quadro P4000 Max-Q reaches 7,500 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro P4000 Max-Q uses Pascal, both on 12 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 1,792 (Quadro P4000 Max-Q). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4.401 TFLOPS (Quadro P4000 Max-Q). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1228 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro P4000 Max-Q
G3D Mark Score	7,869+5%	7,500
Architecture	Turing	Pascal
Process Node	12 nm	16 nm
Shading Units	896	1792+100%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.984 TFLOPS	4.401 TFLOPS+47%
Boost Clock	1665 MHz+36%	1228 MHz
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	56	112+100%
L1 Cache	896 KB+33%	672 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 1650 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Quadro P4000 Max-Q relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro P4000 Max-Q
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 video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2 MB (Quadro P4000 Max-Q) — the Quadro P4000 Max-Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro P4000 Max-Q
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Bus Width	128-bit	256-bit+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.1 (Quadro P4000 Max-Q). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro P4000 Max-Q
DirectX	12	12.1
Vulkan	1.4+8%	1.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3	4+33%

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 6.0 (Quadro P4000 Max-Q). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs PureVideo HD VP8. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro P4000 Max-Q).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro P4000 Max-Q
Encoder	NVENC 5th gen (Volta)	NVENC 6.0
Decoder	NVDEC 4th gen	PureVideo HD VP8
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1650 draws 75W versus the Quadro P4000 Max-Q's 100W — a 28.6% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 350W (Quadro P4000 Max-Q). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1650	Quadro P4000 Max-Q
TDP	75W-25%	100W
Recommended PSU	300W-14%	350W
Power Connector	None	PCIe-powered
Length	229mm	0mm
Height	111mm	0mm
Slots	2	0-100%
Temp (Load)	70°C	—
Perf/Watt	104.9+40%	75.0