Quadro M4000 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile

Place in the ranking	302	318
Place by popularity	68	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	5.86
Power efficiency	25.48	9.96
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	TU117	GM204
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	15 April 2020 (4 years ago)	29 June 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$791

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	1664
Core clock speed	1380 MHz	773 MHz
Boost clock speed	1560 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,700 million	5,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	99.84	80.39
Floating-point processing power	3.195 TFLOPS	2.573 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	64
TMUs	64	104

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 3.0 x16
Length	no data	241 mm
Width	no data	1" (2.5 cm)
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1 x 6-pin
SLI options	-	+

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 GB/s	Up to 192 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	4x DisplayPort
Number of simultaneous displays	no data	4
Multi-display synchronization	no data	Quadro Sync

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision Pro	no data	+
Mosaic	no data	+
High-Performance Video I/O6	no data	+
nView Desktop Management	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12
Shader Model	6.5	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.140	1.1.126
CUDA	7.5	5.2

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 18.51
+6.6%

Quadro M4000 17.36

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
+6.6%

Quadro M4000 6674

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	59 +7.3%	55−60 −7.3%
1440p	36 +20%	30−35 −20%
4K	23 +9.5%	21−24 −9.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	14.38
1440p	no data	26.37
4K	no data	37.67

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	38 +8.6%	35−40 −8.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	52 +15.6%	45−50 −15.6%
Elden Ring	47 +17.5%	40−45 −17.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	66 +10%	60−65 −10%
Counter-Strike 2	33 +10%	30−33 −10%
Cyberpunk 2077	35 +16.7%	30−33 −16.7%
Forza Horizon 4	79 +12.9%	70−75 −12.9%
Metro Exodus	55 +10%	50−55 −10%
Red Dead Redemption 2	71 +9.2%	65−70 −9.2%
Valorant	83 +10.7%	75−80 −10.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	72 +10.8%	65−70 −10.8%
Counter-Strike 2	27 +12.5%	24−27 −12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	28 +16.7%	24−27 −16.7%
Dota 2	72 +10.8%	65−70 −10.8%
Elden Ring	65 +8.3%	60−65 −8.3%
Far Cry 5	62 +12.7%	55−60 −12.7%
Fortnite	95−100 +10%	90−95 −10%
Forza Horizon 4	64 +6.7%	60−65 −6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	59 +7.3%	55−60 −7.3%
Metro Exodus	40 +14.3%	35−40 −14.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	165 +10%	150−160 −10%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +12.5%	24−27 −12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +16%	50−55 −16%
Valorant	47 +17.5%	40−45 −17.5%
World of Tanks	130 +8.3%	120−130 −8.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	56 +12%	50−55 −12%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +10%	30−33 −10%
Cyberpunk 2077	25 +19%	21−24 −19%
Dota 2	89 +11.3%	80−85 −11.3%
Far Cry 5	73 +12.3%	65−70 −12.3%
Forza Horizon 4	55 +10%	50−55 −10%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +15.5%	110−120 −15.5%
Valorant	75−80 +7.1%	70−75 −7.1%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	27−30 +7.4%	27−30 −7.4%
Elden Ring	30−33 +11.1%	27−30 −11.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +7.4%	27−30 −7.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +11.3%	150−160 −11.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +21.4%	14−16 −21.4%
World of Tanks	120−130 +15.5%	110−120 −15.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	37 +23.3%	30−33 −23.3%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +6.7%	45−50 −6.7%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +17.5%	40−45 −17.5%
Metro Exodus	39 +11.4%	35−40 −11.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +19%	21−24 −19%
Valorant	45−50 +17.5%	40−45 −17.5%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Dota 2	30−35 +14.8%	27−30 −14.8%
Elden Ring	12−14 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +14.8%	27−30 −14.8%
Metro Exodus	12 +20%	10−11 −20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	47 +17.5%	40−45 −17.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +14.8%	27−30 −14.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	17 +21.4%	14−16 −21.4%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 +20%	5−6 −20%
Dota 2	45 +12.5%	40−45 −12.5%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +14.3%	21−24 −14.3%
Fortnite	23 +9.5%	21−24 −9.5%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +12.5%	24−27 −12.5%
Valorant	21−24 +22.2%	18−20 −22.2%

This is how GTX 1650 Mobile and Quadro M4000 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 Mobile is 7% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Mobile is 20% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Mobile is 10% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.51	17.36
Recency	15 April 2020	29 June 2015
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	120 Watt

GTX 1650 Mobile has a 6.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 140% lower power consumption.

Quadro M4000, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile and Quadro M4000.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is a notebook card while Quadro M4000 is a workstation one.

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