Quadro FX 4800 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile

Place in the ranking	296	825
Place by popularity	78	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.05
Power efficiency	25.73	1.18
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	TU117	GT200B
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	15 April 2020 (4 years ago)	11 November 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$1,799

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1024	192
Core clock speed	1380 MHz	602 MHz
Boost clock speed	1560 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,700 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	150 Watt
Texture fill rate	99.84	38.53
Floating-point processing power	3.195 TFLOPS	0.4623 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	24
TMUs	64	64

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 6-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR6	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1536 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 GB/s	76.8 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors

No outputs

1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.5	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.140	N/A
CUDA	7.5	1.3

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 1650 Mobile 18.45
+626%

FX 4800 2.54

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 1650 Mobile 7116
+628%

FX 4800 978

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD	57 +714%	7−8 −714%
1440p	37 +640%	5−6 −640%
4K	22 +633%	3−4 −633%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	257.00
1440p	no data	359.80
4K	no data	599.67

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+643%

7−8
−643%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55 +686%	7−8 −686%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	42 +740%	5−6 −740%
Battlefield 5	81 +710%	10−11 −710%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	51 +629%	7−8 −629%
Cyberpunk 2077	41 +720%	5−6 −720%
Far Cry 5	66 +633%	9−10 −633%
Far Cry New Dawn	79 +690%	10−11 −690%
Forza Horizon 4	166 +690%	21−24 −690%
Hitman 3	47 +683%	6−7 −683%
Horizon Zero Dawn	164 +681%	21−24 −681%
Metro Exodus	82 +720%	10−11 −720%
Red Dead Redemption 2	71 +689%	9−10 −689%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	117 +631%	16−18 −631%
Watch Dogs: Legion	146 +711%	18−20 −711%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	80 +700%	10−11 −700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24 +700%	3−4 −700%
Battlefield 5	70 +678%	9−10 −678%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	47 +683%	6−7 −683%
Cyberpunk 2077	32 +700%	4−5 −700%
Far Cry 5	53 +657%	7−8 −657%
Far Cry New Dawn	54 +671%	7−8 −671%
Forza Horizon 4	148 +722%	18−20 −722%
Hitman 3	42 +740%	5−6 −740%
Horizon Zero Dawn	148 +722%	18−20 −722%
Metro Exodus	68 +656%	9−10 −656%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55 +686%	7−8 −686%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	64 +700%	8−9 −700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +740%	5−6 −740%
Watch Dogs: Legion	141 +683%	18−20 −683%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30 +650%	4−5 −650%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8 +700%	1−2 −700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	34 +750%	4−5 −750%
Cyberpunk 2077	30 +650%	4−5 −650%
Far Cry 5	40 +700%	5−6 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	62 +675%	8−9 −675%
Hitman 3	37 +640%	5−6 −640%
Horizon Zero Dawn	57 +714%	7−8 −714%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55 +686%	7−8 −686%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	36 +800%	4−5 −800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	17 +750%	2−3 −750%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+643%

7−8
−643%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	43 +760%	5−6 −760%
Far Cry New Dawn	34 +750%	4−5 −750%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	22 +633%	3−4 −633%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +650%	2−3 −650%
Far Cry 5	25 +733%	3−4 −733%
Forza Horizon 4	99 +725%	12−14 −725%
Hitman 3	26 +767%	3−4 −767%
Horizon Zero Dawn	44 +633%	6−7 −633%
Metro Exodus	39 +680%	5−6 −680%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +800%	4−5 −800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Watch Dogs: Legion	115 +721%	14−16 −721%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+725%

4−5
−725%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21 +950%	2−3 −950%
Far Cry New Dawn	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
Hitman 3	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45 +650%	6−7 −650%
Metro Exodus	26 +767%	3−4 −767%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21 +950%	2−3 −950%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Cyberpunk 2077	5	0−1
Far Cry 5	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +733%	3−4 −733%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+750%

2−3
−750%

This is how GTX 1650 Mobile and FX 4800 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 Mobile is 714% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Mobile is 640% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Mobile is 633% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.45	2.54
Recency	15 April 2020	11 November 2008
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1536 MB
Chip lithography	12 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	150 Watt

GTX 1650 Mobile has a 626.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 358.3% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4800 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is a notebook card while Quadro FX 4800 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.