NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 are separated by nearly a decade of GPU architecture, and the benchmark data reflects a decisive generational gap. Across the only shared benchmark, the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers a 345.6% higher score in Geekbench OpenCL, making the comparison a formality rather than a contest. The GTX 1650 SUPER ranks in the 50th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 11047, while the Quadro 6000 sits at the 47th percentile with an average score of 9846.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a landslide. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43875 points, while the Quadro 6000 manages only 9846 points. This translates to a 345.6% advantage for the newer card. To put that in perspective, the Quadro 6000 would need to more than quadruple its score to match the GTX 1650 SUPER.

This single result is consistent with the broader performance context. The GTX 1650 SUPER’s average benchmark score of 11047 places it just 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11075) and 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10883). Its nearest rivals also include the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q, both scoring 11088, which puts the GTX 1650 SUPER within 0.4% of those workstations-class parts.

The Quadro 6000’s average score of 9846 puts it in a different league entirely. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9832, 0.1% behind), the AMD FirePro W5000 (9803, 0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9780, 0.7% behind). Notably, the Quadro 6000 is 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9959). Even against mobile and older workstation parts, the Quadro 6000 is not competitive with the GTX 1650 SUPER’s compute output.

In terms of individual benchmark breadth, the GTX 1650 SUPER has ten recorded scores, covering DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, OpenCL, Vulkan, and compute workloads. The Quadro 6000 has only one score. The GTX 1650 SUPER’s best relative showing is in Passmark DirectX 9 (148 points), while its weakest is Passmark DirectX 12 (45 points). The Quadro 6000 cannot be compared on any of those tests, as it lacks the data.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior GPU for any workload that requires compute performance. Its 345.6% lead in OpenCL is not a marginal improvement; it is a complete generational overhaul. The GTX 1650 SUPER’s Turing architecture delivers 4.416 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Quadro 6000’s Fermi architecture manages just 1,027.7 GFLOPS — a difference of roughly 4.3x in raw floating-point throughput.

The GTX 1650 SUPER is the only rational choice for any user prioritizing speed, modern API support, or efficiency. It draws 100 W versus the Quadro 6000’s 204 W, uses a single 6-pin connector instead of a 6-pin plus 8-pin arrangement, and requires a 300 W power supply versus 550 W. It also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and HDMI 2.0, while the Quadro 6000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and lacks Vulkan support entirely.

The Quadro 6000’s only advantage is its 6 GB of VRAM on a 384-bit bus, versus 4 GB on a 128-bit bus. However, that extra capacity comes with lower bandwidth (143.4 GB/s vs 192.0 GB/s) and slower memory (3 Gbps effective vs 12 Gbps effective). For compute-heavy tasks, the GTX 1650 SUPER’s higher bandwidth and faster memory outweigh the Quadro 6000’s larger pool.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 SUPER wins decisively in compute performance, as evidenced by its OpenCL score of 43875 versus 9846. It also wins on architectural features: Turing supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio (8.832 TFLOPS), which the Fermi-based Quadro 6000 cannot do at all. The GTX 1650 SUPER has more shading units (1280 vs 448), more texture mapping units (80 vs 56), and higher pixel and texture rates (55.20 GPixel/s and 138.0 GTexel/s vs 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s).

The Quadro 6000 wins on memory capacity and bus width. It offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit interface, which is 50% more memory than the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 4 GB. It also has more ROPs (48 vs 32). For workloads that require holding larger datasets in VRAM without frequent transfers, the Quadro 6000 has a theoretical advantage, but its lower bandwidth (143.4 GB/s vs 192.0 GB/s) and slower effective memory speed (3 Gbps vs 12 Gbps) mean that advantage is rarely realized in practice.

The GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear winner for any modern gaming or compute workload. The Quadro 6000 is only relevant for legacy applications that specifically require its 6 GB memory pool and cannot use the GTX 1650 SUPER’s higher speed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43875 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the Quadro 6000’s 9846, a 345.6% difference.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The Quadro 6000 has 143.4 GB/s from 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11047, placing it in the 50th percentile. The Quadro 6000 has an average score of 9846, placing it in the 47th percentile.

Q: Does the Quadro 6000 support Vulkan?

A: No, the Quadro 6000 does not list Vulkan support. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W and a single 6-pin connector. The Quadro 6000 has a TDP of 204 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W and a 6-pin plus 8-pin connector.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1280 shading units, while the Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 1650 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture using the TU116 chip, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². The Quadro 6000 uses the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. It has 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 5.9M per mm².

The Turing chip supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 8.832 TFLOPS, while the Fermi chip has no FP16 capability listed. The GTX 1650 SUPER also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but lacks Vulkan support. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

The GTX 1650 SUPER uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 6000 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The GTX 1650 SUPER’s display outputs include 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro 6000 offers 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video. The GTX 1650 SUPER’s memory runs at 12 Gbps effective, whereas the Quadro 6000’s runs at 3 Gbps effective.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1725 MHz; the Quadro 6000 has no base or boost clocks listed. Memory type differs: GDDR6 for the GTX 1650 SUPER, GDDR5 for the Quadro 6000. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 4 GB of memory, the Quadro 6000 has 6 GB.

The bus width is 128 bit for the GTX 1650 SUPER and 384 bit for the Quadro 6000. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Pixel rates are 55.20 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 138.0 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 4.416 TFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Dimensions differ slightly: the GTX 1650 SUPER is 229 mm long, 111 mm high, and 35 mm wide. The Quadro 6000 is 248 mm long and 111 mm high, with no width listed. Both are dual-slot cards. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a launch MSRP of 159 USD, while the Quadro 6000 has a launch MSRP of 4,399 USD. The GTX 1650 SUPER was released in 2019, the Quadro 6000 in 2010.