GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro FX 2700M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 2700M with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 outperforms FX 2700M by a whopping 2057% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1129 | 279 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | 37.35 |
| Power efficiency | 1.01 | 18.83 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G94 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 August 2008 (16 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.95 | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1650 has 186650% better value for money than FX 2700M.
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 | 48 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 530 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 505 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.72 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1272 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 24 | 56 |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-HE | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 799 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.14 GB/s | 128.0 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, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 7.5 |
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.
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.
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.
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 | 3−4
−2167%
| 68
+2167%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−3900%
| 40
+3900%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−2200%
| 23
+2200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 33.32
−1420%
| 2.19
+1420%
|
| 1440p | 99.95
−2583%
| 3.73
+2583%
|
| 4K | 99.95
−1443%
| 6.48
+1443%
|
- GTX 1650 has 1420% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1650 has 2583% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1650 has 1443% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−925%
|
40−45
+925%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−325%
|
17
+325%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1467%
|
94
+1467%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−1183%
|
77
+1183%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−250%
|
14
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−890%
|
99
+890%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2633%
|
82
+2633%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1133%
|
74
+1133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1145%
|
130−140
+1145%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−367%
|
28
+367%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−983%
|
65−70
+983%
|
| World of Tanks | 21−24
−968%
|
230−240
+968%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−200%
|
12
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−570%
|
65−70
+570%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−933%
|
62
+933%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−455%
|
61
+455%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−3360%
|
170−180
+3360%
|
| World of Tanks | 4−5
−3375%
|
130−140
+3375%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1020%
|
55−60
+1020%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−625%
|
27−30
+625%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−567%
|
40
+567%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−106%
|
33
+106%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−93.3%
|
29
+93.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−3000%
|
60−65
+3000%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−93.3%
|
29
+93.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18
+1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−269%
|
59
+269%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Valorant | 1−2
−2000%
|
21
+2000%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how FX 2700M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 2167% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 3900% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 2200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 3375% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 34 tests (55%)
- there's a draw in 28 tests (45%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.92 | 19.84 |
| Recency | 14 August 2008 | 23 April 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 75 Watt |
FX 2700M has 15.4% lower power consumption.
GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 2056.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 441.7% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 2700M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
