Quadro K3100M vs GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile with Quadro K3100M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1650 Mobile
2020
4 GB GDDR6, 50 Watt
18.45
+214%

GTX 1650 Mobile outperforms K3100M by a whopping 214% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking296591
Place by popularity78not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.25
Power efficiency25.735.46
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameTU117GK104
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date15 April 2020 (4 years ago)23 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$1,999

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 cores1024768
Core clock speed1380 MHz706 MHz
Boost clock speed1560 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,700 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate99.8445.18
Floating-point processing power3.195 TFLOPS1.084 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs6464

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 sizemedium sizedlarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)

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 typeGDDR6GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/s102.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus-+
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12
Shader Model6.55.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.140+
CUDA7.5+

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
+214%
K3100M 5.87

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
+214%
K3100M 2264

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 1650 Mobile 13132
+267%
K3100M 3581

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GTX 1650 Mobile 31311
+107%
K3100M 15120

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GTX 1650 Mobile 9313
+233%
K3100M 2797

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 1650 Mobile 57365
+212%
K3100M 18389

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

GTX 1650 Mobile 101
+180%
K3100M 36

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 HD57
+67.6%
34
−67.6%
1440p37
+270%
10−12
−270%
4K22
+46.7%
15
−46.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data58.79
1440pno data199.90
4Kno data133.27

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 52
+420%
10−11
−420%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 55
+267%
14−16
−267%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 42
+500%
7−8
−500%
Battlefield 5 81
+406%
16−18
−406%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 51
+325%
12−14
−325%
Cyberpunk 2077 41
+310%
10−11
−310%
Far Cry 5 66
+408%
12−14
−408%
Far Cry New Dawn 79
+394%
16−18
−394%
Forza Horizon 4 166
+337%
35−40
−337%
Hitman 3 47
+292%
12−14
−292%
Horizon Zero Dawn 164
+356%
35−40
−356%
Metro Exodus 82
+447%
14−16
−447%
Red Dead Redemption 2 71
+344%
16−18
−344%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 117
+485%
20−22
−485%
Watch Dogs: Legion 146
+198%
45−50
−198%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 80
+433%
14−16
−433%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24
+243%
7−8
−243%
Battlefield 5 70
+338%
16−18
−338%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 47
+292%
12−14
−292%
Cyberpunk 2077 32
+220%
10−11
−220%
Far Cry 5 53
+308%
12−14
−308%
Far Cry New Dawn 54
+238%
16−18
−238%
Forza Horizon 4 148
+289%
35−40
−289%
Hitman 3 42
+250%
12−14
−250%
Horizon Zero Dawn 148
+311%
35−40
−311%
Metro Exodus 68
+353%
14−16
−353%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55
+244%
16−18
−244%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 64
+220%
20−22
−220%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
−9.5%
46
+9.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 141
+188%
45−50
−188%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30
+100%
14−16
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 34
+183%
12−14
−183%
Cyberpunk 2077 30
+200%
10−11
−200%
Far Cry 5 40
+208%
12−14
−208%
Forza Horizon 4 62
+63.2%
35−40
−63.2%
Hitman 3 37
+208%
12−14
−208%
Horizon Zero Dawn 57
+58.3%
35−40
−58.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55
+175%
20−22
−175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36
+414%
7
−414%
Watch Dogs: Legion 17
−188%
45−50
+188%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 52
+225%
16−18
−225%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 43
+291%
10−12
−291%
Far Cry New Dawn 34
+278%
9−10
−278%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 22
+340%
5−6
−340%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 15
+400%
3−4
−400%
Far Cry 5 25
+257%
7−8
−257%
Forza Horizon 4 99
+482%
16−18
−482%
Hitman 3 26
+160%
10−11
−160%
Horizon Zero Dawn 44
+238%
12−14
−238%
Metro Exodus 39
+875%
4−5
−875%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+3500%
1−2
−3500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+320%
5−6
−320%
Watch Dogs: Legion 115
+211%
35−40
−211%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 33
+230%
10−11
−230%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21
+320%
5−6
−320%
Far Cry New Dawn 17
+325%
4−5
−325%
Hitman 3 14
+600%
2−3
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45
+246%
12−14
−246%
Metro Exodus 26
+767%
3−4
−767%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
+320%
5
−320%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12
+200%
4−5
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 5 0−1
Far Cry 5 12
+300%
3−4
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+317%
6−7
−317%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 17
+183%
6−7
−183%

This is how GTX 1650 Mobile and K3100M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Mobile is 68% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 Mobile is 270% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 Mobile is 47% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1650 Mobile is 3500% faster.
  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K3100M is 188% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Mobile is ahead in 68 tests (97%)
  • K3100M is ahead in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.45 5.87
Recency 15 April 2020 23 July 2013
Chip lithography 12 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 75 Watt

GTX 1650 Mobile has a 214.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3100M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K3100M is a mobile workstation one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
NVIDIA Quadro K3100M
Quadro K3100M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 3258 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 127 votes

Rate Quadro K3100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.