GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro NVS 5100M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 5100M with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 outperforms NVS 5100M by a whopping 2118% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 1128 | 267 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 41.05 |
Architecture | GT2xx (2009−2012) | Turing (2018−2022) |
GPU code name | N10P-NS | TU117 |
Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
Release date | 7 January 2010 (14 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.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. 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 | 550 MHz | 1485 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 1665 MHz |
Number of transistors | no data | 4,700 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 75 Watt |
Texture fill rate | no data | 93.24 |
Floating-point performance | no data | 2.984 gflops |
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 | no data | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 8000 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 10.1 | 12 (12_1) |
Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
CUDA | - | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
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
−2233%
| 70
+2233%
|
1440p | 1−2
−3600%
| 37
+3600%
|
4K | 1−2
−2300%
| 24
+2300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−960%
|
53
+960%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−1633%
|
52
+1633%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 64 |
Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−3900%
|
80
+3900%
|
Hitman 3 | 5−6
−880%
|
49
+880%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−2333%
|
292
+2333%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−7600%
|
77
+7600%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−1543%
|
115
+1543%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−623%
|
224
+623%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−1560%
|
83
+1560%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−1433%
|
46
+1433%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 52 |
Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−2700%
|
56
+2700%
|
Hitman 3 | 5−6
−840%
|
47
+840%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−2067%
|
260
+2067%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−5400%
|
55
+5400%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−957%
|
74
+957%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−360%
|
45−50
+360%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−565%
|
206
+565%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−400%
|
25
+400%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−167%
|
8
+167%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 39 |
Hitman 3 | 5−6
−720%
|
41
+720%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−400%
|
60
+400%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−786%
|
62
+786%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−320%
|
42
+320%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21
−47.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−5300%
|
54
+5300%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 42 |
Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−3500%
|
36
+3500%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 18 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24
+2300%
|
Hitman 3 | 7−8
−286%
|
27
+286%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−975%
|
43
+975%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 24−27 |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−4733%
|
145
+4733%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−1067%
|
35
+1067%
|
4K
High Preset
Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 17 |
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−1200%
|
13
+1200%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 5 |
Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 12 |
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−750%
|
17
+750%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 229
+0%
|
229
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 101
+0%
|
101
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 201
+0%
|
201
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+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
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
This is how NVS 5100M and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1650 is 2233% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1650 is 3600% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1650 is 2300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the NVS 5100M is 48% faster.
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 is 7600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- NVS 5100M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- GTX 1650 is ahead in 37 tests (59%)
- there's a draw in 25 tests (40%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 0.92 | 20.41 |
Recency | 7 January 2010 | 23 April 2019 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 75 Watt |
NVS 5100M has 114.3% lower power consumption.
GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 2118.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 5100M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro NVS 5100M 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.