GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro K2000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2000 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K2000
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 51 Watt
4.10

GTX 1650 outperforms K2000 by a whopping 398% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking692269
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.4138.84
Power efficiency5.5118.67
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGK107TU117
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date1 March 2013 (11 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$599 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 has 9373% better value for money than Quadro K2000.

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 cores384896
Core clock speed954 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1665 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)51 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate30.5393.24
Floating-point processing power0.7327 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs3256

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length202 mm229 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s128.0 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA3.07.5

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.

Quadro K2000 4.10
GTX 1650 20.43
+398%

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.

Quadro K2000 1581
GTX 1650 7874
+398%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro K2000 3952
GTX 1650 39171
+891%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Quadro K2000 4116
GTX 1650 35813
+770%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Quadro K2000 3055
GTX 1650 39941
+1207%

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 HD12−14
−475%
69
+475%
1440p7−8
−457%
39
+457%
4K4−5
−450%
22
+450%

Cost per frame, $

1080p49.922.16
1440p85.573.82
4K149.756.77

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 53
+0%
53
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 47
+0%
47
+0%
Battlefield 5 79
+0%
79
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 52
+0%
52
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 64
+0%
64
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 80
+0%
80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 229
+0%
229
+0%
Hitman 3 49
+0%
49
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 292
+0%
292
+0%
Metro Exodus 101
+0%
101
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 77
+0%
77
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 115
+0%
115
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 224
+0%
224
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 83
+0%
83
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35
+0%
35
+0%
Battlefield 5 72
+0%
72
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 46
+0%
46
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 56
+0%
56
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 201
+0%
201
+0%
Hitman 3 47
+0%
47
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 260
+0%
260
+0%
Metro Exodus 71
+0%
71
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55
+0%
55
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 74
+0%
74
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 206
+0%
206
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 25
+0%
25
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8
+0%
8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 39
+0%
39
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65
+0%
65
+0%
Hitman 3 41
+0%
41
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60
+0%
60
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 62
+0%
62
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+0%
42
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21
+0%
21
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 54
+0%
54
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 42
+0%
42
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 36
+0%
36
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18
+0%
18
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 122
+0%
122
+0%
Hitman 3 27
+0%
27
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 43
+0%
43
+0%
Metro Exodus 41
+0%
41
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45
+0%
45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 145
+0%
145
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35
+0%
35
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 20
+0%
20
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 17
+0%
17
+0%
Hitman 3 13
+0%
13
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 41
+0%
41
+0%
Metro Exodus 27
+0%
27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+0%
26
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 13
+0%
13
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5
+0%
5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+0%
30
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 26
+0%
26
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8
+0%
8
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 17
+0%
17
+0%

This is how Quadro K2000 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 475% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 457% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 450% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.10 20.43
Recency 1 March 2013 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 51 Watt 75 Watt

Quadro K2000 has 47.1% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 398.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K2000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop 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 K2000
Quadro K2000
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650

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.


3.6 215 votes

Rate Quadro K2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 23772 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 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.