
GeForce GTX 1650
Popular choices:

Quadro RTX 6000
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
2019Why buy it
- ✅Costs $6,151 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $6,300 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1760.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 2.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $6,300 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 260W, a 185W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Quadro RTX 6000 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 24 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Quadro RTX 6000
2018Why buy it
- ✅197.3% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅500% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (24 GB vs 4 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 24 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌4128.2% HIGHER MSRP$6,300 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 2.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($6,300 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌246.7% higher power demand at 260W vs 75W.
- ❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.
GeForce GTX 1650
2019Quadro RTX 6000
2018Why buy it
- ✅Costs $6,151 less on MSRP ($149 MSRP vs $6,300 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 1760.1% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 52.8 vs 2.8 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs $6,300 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 260W, a 185W reduction.
- ✅Measures 229mm instead of 267mm, a 38mm shorter card that is more SFF-friendly.
Why buy it
- ✅197.3% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ✅500% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (24 GB vs 4 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower average FPS than Quadro RTX 6000 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
- ❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 24 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 4 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 24 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
- ❌4128.2% HIGHER MSRP$6,300 MSRPvs$149 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 2.8 vs 52.8 G3D/$ ($6,300 MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
- ❌246.7% higher power demand at 260W vs 75W.
- ❌16.6% longer card at 267mm vs 229mm.
Quick Answers
So, is Quadro RTX 6000 better than GeForce GTX 1650?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
When does GeForce GTX 1650 make more sense than Quadro RTX 6000?
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 | Quadro RTX 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 94 FPS | 205 FPS |
| medium | 83 FPS | 190 FPS |
| high | 70 FPS | 166 FPS |
| ultra | 58 FPS | 151 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 87 FPS | 187 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 158 FPS |
| high | 60 FPS | 130 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 121 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 41 FPS | 119 FPS |
| medium | 39 FPS | 100 FPS |
| high | 27 FPS | 77 FPS |
| ultra | 24 FPS | 70 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 136 FPS | 507 FPS |
| medium | 113 FPS | 443 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 344 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 289 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 326 FPS |
| medium | 62 FPS | 274 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 224 FPS |
| ultra | 35 FPS | 184 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 153 FPS |
| medium | 27 FPS | 135 FPS |
| high | 21 FPS | 113 FPS |
| ultra | 15 FPS | 90 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 323 FPS | 805 FPS |
| medium | 283 FPS | 644 FPS |
| high | 205 FPS | 537 FPS |
| ultra | 169 FPS | 402 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 225 FPS | 604 FPS |
| medium | 202 FPS | 483 FPS |
| high | 151 FPS | 402 FPS |
| ultra | 117 FPS | 302 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 130 FPS | 402 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 322 FPS |
| high | 79 FPS | 268 FPS |
| ultra | 50 FPS | 201 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 261 FPS | 673 FPS |
| medium | 211 FPS | 605 FPS |
| high | 191 FPS | 515 FPS |
| ultra | 166 FPS | 402 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 201 FPS | 544 FPS |
| medium | 158 FPS | 483 FPS |
| high | 135 FPS | 402 FPS |
| ultra | 113 FPS | 302 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 99 FPS | 355 FPS |
| medium | 74 FPS | 322 FPS |
| high | 65 FPS | 268 FPS |
| ultra | 51 FPS | 201 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1650 and Quadro RTX 6000

GeForce GTX 1650
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 RTX 6000
Quadro RTX 6000
The Quadro RTX 6000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 13 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1440 MHz to 1770 MHz. It has 4608 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 260W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 72 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 17,887 points. Launch price was $6,299.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1650 scores 7,869 versus the Quadro RTX 6000's 17,887 — the Quadro RTX 6000 leads by 127.3%. The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on Turing while the Quadro RTX 6000 uses Turing, both on a 12 nm process. Shader units: 896 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 4,608 (Quadro RTX 6000). Raw compute: 2.984 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 16.31 TFLOPS (Quadro RTX 6000). Boost clocks: 1665 MHz vs 1770 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,869 | 17,887+127% |
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 896 | 4608+414% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.984 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS+447% |
| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 1770 MHz+6% |
| ROPs | 32 | 96+200% |
| TMUs | 56 | 288+414% |
| L1 Cache | 0.88 MB | 4.5 MB+411% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 6 MB+500% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | Upscaling support |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GTX 1650 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro RTX 6000 has 24 GB. The Quadro RTX 6000 offers 500% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 128 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 768 GB/s (Quadro RTX 6000) — a 500% advantage for the Quadro RTX 6000. Bus width: 128-bit vs 384-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 6 MB (Quadro RTX 6000) — the Quadro RTX 6000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 24 GB+500% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 768 GB/s+500% |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 384-bit+200% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 6 MB+500% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 12.2 (Quadro RTX 6000). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.4+27% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 5th gen (Volta) (GeForce GTX 1650) vs NVENC 7.0 (Quadro RTX 6000). Decoder: NVDEC 4th gen vs PureVideo HD VP10. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro RTX 6000).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 5th gen (Volta) | NVENC 7.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th gen | PureVideo HD VP10 |
| 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 RTX 6000's 260W — a 110.4% difference. The GeForce GTX 1650 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 650W (Quadro RTX 6000). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 229mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-71% | 260W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-54% | 650W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 229mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 112mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 104.9+52% | 68.8 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 1650 launched at $149 MSRP, while the Quadro RTX 6000 launched at $6300. The GeForce GTX 1650 costs 97.6% less ($6151 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 52.8 (GeForce GTX 1650) vs 2.8 (Quadro RTX 6000) — the GeForce GTX 1650 offers 1785.7% better value. The GeForce GTX 1650 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2018).
| Feature | GeForce GTX 1650 | Quadro RTX 6000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $149-98% | $6300 |
| Performance per Dollar | 52.8+1786% | 2.8 |
| Codename | TU117 | TU102 |
| Release | April 23 2019 | August 13 2018 |
| Ranking | #323 | #99 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













