GeForce GTX 1650 vs Quadro P400

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P400 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P400
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 30 Watt
4.27

GTX 1650 outperforms P400 by a whopping 379% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking679269
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.7638.86
Power efficiency9.7518.68
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGP107TU117
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date7 February 2017 (7 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$119.99 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 has 1308% better value for money than Quadro P400.

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 cores256896
Core clock speed1228 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speed1252 MHz1665 MHz
Number of transistors3,300 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate20.0393.24
Floating-point processing power0.641 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs1656

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 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length145 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 width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1002 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth32.06 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 Connectors3x mini-DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA6.17.5

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 P400 4.27
GTX 1650 20.44
+379%

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 P400 1645
GTX 1650 7874
+379%

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 P400 5624
GTX 1650 39168
+596%

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 P400 5134
GTX 1650 35813
+598%

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 P400 5691
GTX 1650 39941
+602%

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 HD14−16
−393%
69
+393%
1440p8−9
−388%
39
+388%
4K4−5
−450%
22
+450%

Cost per frame, $

1080p8.572.16
1440p15.003.82
4K30.006.77

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 P400 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 393% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 388% 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 4.27 20.44
Recency 7 February 2017 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 75 Watt

Quadro P400 has 150% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 378.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P400 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P400 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 P400
Quadro P400
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.


4.1 490 votes

Rate Quadro P400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 23784 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.