GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs Quadro FX 2800M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 2800M with GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

FX 2800M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.08

GTX 1650 Max-Q outperforms FX 2800M by a whopping 1382% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1084334
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.0037.20
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameG92TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 December 2009 (14 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)

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 cores961024
Core clock speed600 MHz930 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1125 MHz
Number of transistors754 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate28.8072.00
Floating-point processing power0.288 TFLOPS2.304 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs4864

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz1751 MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s112.1 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

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.140
CUDA+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. 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.

FX 2800M 1.08
GTX 1650 Max-Q 16.01
+1382%

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.

FX 2800M 417
GTX 1650 Max-Q 6175
+1381%

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.

FX 2800M 5783
GTX 1650 Max-Q 30957
+435%

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 HD31
−80.6%
56
+80.6%
1440p2−3
−1400%
30
+1400%
4K1−2
−1600%
17
+1600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−733%
24−27
+733%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−880%
49
+880%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−950%
42
+950%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−733%
24−27
+733%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−4700%
48
+4700%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−2850%
59
+2850%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 195
Hitman 3 5−6
−520%
30−35
+520%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−515%
80−85
+515%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−5300%
54
+5300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−643%
50−55
+643%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−153%
80−85
+153%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−1280%
69
+1280%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−900%
40
+900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−733%
24−27
+733%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−3700%
38
+3700%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−1950%
41
+1950%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 179
Hitman 3 5−6
−520%
30−35
+520%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−515%
80−85
+515%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−4400%
45
+4400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−643%
50−55
+643%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−245%
35−40
+245%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−153%
80−85
+153%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−300%
20
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−525%
25
+525%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−733%
24−27
+733%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2500%
26
+2500%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 55
Hitman 3 5−6
−520%
30−35
+520%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−515%
80−85
+515%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−643%
50−55
+643%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−173%
30
+173%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−153%
80−85
+153%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−4100%
42
+4100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−3200%
33
+3200%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2500%
26
+2500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−1600%
17
+1600%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1800%
19
+1800%
Hitman 3 7−8
−171%
18−20
+171%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−725%
30−35
+725%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 16−18
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−1860%
95−100
+1860%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−550%
24−27
+550%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 13

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−700%
8
+700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 8−9
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 8−9
Far Cry 5 0−1 9

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−550%
13
+550%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Battlefield 5 63
+0%
63
+0%
Metro Exodus 71
+0%
71
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Battlefield 5 55
+0%
55
+0%
Metro Exodus 58
+0%
58
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 124
+0%
124
+0%
Metro Exodus 32
+0%
32
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 11
+0%
11
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 22
+0%
22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+0%
18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

This is how FX 2800M and GTX 1650 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 81% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 1400% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 1600% faster in 4K

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

  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 Max-Q is 5300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is ahead in 43 tests (67%)
  • there's a draw in 21 test (33%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.08 16.01
Recency 1 December 2009 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 30 Watt

GTX 1650 Max-Q has a 1382.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 441.7% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2800M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 2800M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q 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 Quadro FX 2800M
Quadro FX 2800M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

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.


3 6 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2800M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 617 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q 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.