GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro NVS 160M

Place in the ranking	1291	272
Place by popularity	not in top-100	3
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	37.78
Power efficiency	2.01	18.80
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	G98	TU117
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	15 August 2008 (16 years ago)	23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149

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	8	896
Core clock speed	580 MHz	1485 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1665 MHz
Number of transistors	210 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.640	93.24
Floating-point processing power	0.0232 TFLOPS	2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	32
TMUs	8	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).

Interface	MXM-I	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	256 MB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	11.2 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 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. 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.

NVS 160M 0.35

GTX 1650 20.48
+5751%

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.

NVS 160M 135

GTX 1650 7875
+5733%

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	1−2 −6800%	69 +6800%
1440p	0−1	40
4K	-0−1	23

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.16
1440p	no data	3.73
4K	no data	6.48

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −363%	35−40 +363%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1950%	40−45 +1950%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −363%	35−40 +363%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −750%	17 +750%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −1780%	94 +1780%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −1825%	77 +1825%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −363%	35−40 +363%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −600%	14 +600%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −1400%	90 +1400%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −1380%	74 +1380%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −1857%	130−140 +1857%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −600%	28 +600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −1200%	65−70 +1200%
World of Tanks	12−14 −1708%	230−240 +1708%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −363%	35−40 +363%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −500%	12 +500%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −1033%	65−70 +1033%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −1140%	62 +1140%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −771%	61 +771%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

2−3

−8500%

170−180
+8500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −88.9%	16−18 +88.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −250%	7 +250%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −1300%	55−60 +1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −1300%	27−30 +1300%
Valorant	5−6 −700%	40 +700%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −93.3%	29 +93.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −93.3%	29 +93.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 −6100%	60−65 +6100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −93.3%	29 +93.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	18
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3 +200%
Dota 2	14−16 −293%	59 +293%
Valorant	1−2 −2000%	21 +2000%

Full HD
Low Preset

Elden Ring

65−70

+0%

65−70

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	66 +0%	66 +0%
Metro Exodus	66 +0%	66 +0%
Valorant	85 +0%	85 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	75 +0%	75 +0%
Dota 2	82 +0%	82 +0%
Elden Ring	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Fortnite	82 +0%	82 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	75 +0%	75 +0%
Metro Exodus	44 +0%	44 +0%
Valorant	46 +0%	46 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55 +0%	55 +0%
Dota 2	92 +0%	92 +0%
Valorant	70 +0%	70 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Elden Ring	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	17 +0%	17 +0%
World of Tanks	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	38 +0%	38 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45 +0%	45 +0%
Metro Exodus	41 +0%	41 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Elden Ring	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Metro Exodus	12 +0%	12 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Fortnite	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	26 +0%	26 +0%

This is how NVS 160M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 is 6800% faster in 1080p

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 is 8500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 1650 is ahead in 32 tests (52%)
there's a draw in 30 tests (48%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.35	20.48
Recency	15 August 2008	23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount	256 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	75 Watt

NVS 160M has 525% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 5751.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1500% 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 NVS 160M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 160M is a mobile workstation 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.