NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 represent two very different generations of GPU design, separated by over five years of architectural evolution. The GTX 1650 SUPER, built on the Turing architecture with a 12 nm process, delivers benchmark scores that dwarf the Maxwell-based K2200 in compute-oriented workloads, but the comparison is not solely about raw performance—the two cards also differ fundamentally in their target use cases, memory technology, and feature support. The data shows a decisive overall winner in the GTX 1650 SUPER, with a 400.7% lead in Vulkan and a 283.8% lead in OpenCL, yet the K2200 still holds relevance in specific professional contexts due to its single-slot form factor and lower power requirements.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 SUPER wins every head-to-head benchmark in the dataset, and the margin is substantial. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 against the K2200's 11,431, a 283.8% advantage. The Vulkan gap is even wider: 50,519 versus 10,090, a 400.7% difference. These are not marginal improvements; they represent a generational leap in compute throughput. The GTX 1650 SUPER's FP32 performance of 4.416 TFLOPS versus the K2200's 1,438.7 GFLOPS explains much of this gap, as does the former's 192.0 GB/s memory bandwidth compared to the latter's 80.19 GB/s.

The GTX 1650 SUPER also wins on architectural features. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K2200 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) despite also listing Vulkan 1.4. The newer card's GDDR6 memory operates at 12 Gbps effective, versus the K2200's GDDR5 at 5 Gbps effective, and this bandwidth advantage is critical for texture-heavy workloads. The K2200 does not win any benchmark in the dataset; its wins would have to come from qualitative factors like its single-slot profile and 68 W TDP, which is lower than the GTX 1650 SUPER's 100 W.

For use-case splitting, the GTX 1650 SUPER is clearly the choice for any compute, gaming, or graphics workload where performance matters. The K2200, with its 17.98 GPixel/s pixel rate and 44.96 GTexel/s texture rate (versus 55.20 GPixel/s and 138.0 GTexel/s on the GTX 1650 SUPER), is better suited for legacy professional environments that require a compact card with no auxiliary power connector.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The GTX 1650 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture using TSMC's 12 nm process, housing 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. The K2200 uses the Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm process, with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The transistor density difference is telling: 23.2M per mm² for the GTX 1650 SUPER versus 12.6M per mm² for the K2200. This is not just a node improvement; it reflects fundamentally different design priorities.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The K2200 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs—exactly half in each category. Clock speeds also favor the newer card: the GTX 1650 SUPER boosts to 1,725 MHz from a 1,530 MHz base, while the K2200 boosts to 1,124 MHz from 1,046 MHz. The FP16 capability is another differentiator: the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 8.832 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the K2200 has no listed FP16 support at all.

Memory subsystems are equally divergent. Both cards have 4 GB of VRAM and a 128-bit bus, but the GTX 1650 SUPER uses GDDR6 at 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the K2200 uses GDDR5 at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for 80.19 GB/s. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the K2200 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs differ too: the GTX 1650 SUPER offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the K2200 provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Physical characteristics reflect their different design intents. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm long and 35 mm wide, requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The K2200 is single-slot, 202 mm long, with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The K2200's 68 W TDP is notably lower than the GTX 1650 SUPER's 100 W, making it a better fit for power-constrained or space-constrained systems.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 by margins that range from 283.8% to 400.7% in the available tests. The GTX 1650 SUPER also holds a higher average benchmark score of 11,047 against the K2200's 10,761, and it sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs compared to the K2200's 49th. These are close overall percentile rankings, but that is because the GTX 1650 SUPER's average is dragged down by its low PassMark scores in legacy DirectX tests (e.g., 50 in DirectX 10, 45 in DirectX 12, 148 in DirectX 9), which are not present in the K2200's limited benchmark set.

For anyone choosing between these two cards for general-purpose graphics or compute work, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only rational pick. Its 4.416 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, and modern feature set (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4, GDDR6) make it categorically superior. The K2200's only advantages are qualitative: it is a single-slot card with no power connector requirement and a lower 68 W TDP, which could matter in legacy workstations with strict physical or power constraints. The K2200's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (0.4% lower average score) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (0.7% higher), indicating it performs in the same class as much older hardware. The GTX 1650 SUPER, by contrast, sits within 1.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and within 0.4% of the RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, a far more modern performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has 80.19 GB/s. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses GDDR6 memory at 12 Gbps effective, whereas the K2200 uses GDDR5 at 5 Gbps effective.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Quadro K2200 wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the GTX 1650 SUPER wins both, with no wins recorded for the K2200.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between these two GPUs?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER contains 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, while the K2200 contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K2200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both list OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 support.

Q: Which card requires less power?

A: The Quadro K2200 has a 68 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a 100 W TDP, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 SUPER in Vulkan?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50,519 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 400.7% higher than the K2200's score of 10,090.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two benchmark entries, but both are decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 against the K2200's 11,431, yielding a 283.8% delta. This test measures general-purpose compute performance across a range of workloads, and the result aligns with the raw hardware differences: the GTX 1650 SUPER has double the shading units (1,280 vs 640), a 61% higher boost clock (1,725 MHz vs 1,124 MHz), and 2.4x the memory bandwidth (192.0 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s). The K2200's FP32 output of 1,438.7 GFLOPS is roughly one-third of the GTX 1650 SUPER's 4.416 TFLOPS, and this ratio is consistent with the observed OpenCL delta.

The Vulkan test shows an even larger gap. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50,519, while the K2200 manages only 10,090, a 400.7% difference. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that scales well with raw hardware throughput, and the GTX 1650 SUPER's Turing architecture with its 8.832 TFLOPS FP16 capability (2:1 ratio) likely contributes to this outsized advantage. The K2200 has no FP16 support listed, which means it cannot leverage half-precision compute paths that modern APIs may expose. Additionally, the GTX 1650 SUPER's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus the K2200's PCIe 2.0 x16 reduces data transfer bottlenecks for the newer card.

Beyond these two tests, the GTX 1650 SUPER has a broader benchmark profile that reveals its strengths and weaknesses. Its PassMark G3D score is 10,179, with a GPU compute score of 4,477. The G2D score of 749 is modest, and legacy DirectX tests show low numbers: 148 in DirectX 9, 73 in DirectX 11, 50 in DirectX 10, and 45 in DirectX 12. These scores are not comparable to the K2200, which has no PassMark entries in the dataset, but they do indicate that the GTX 1650 SUPER's performance is heavily skewed toward modern workloads. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 352 further confirms its capability in contemporary gaming and compute scenarios.

The average benchmark scores place both cards close together—11,047 for the GTX 1650 SUPER and 10,761 for the K2200—but this is misleading because the K2200 has only two benchmark entries, both of which are among the GTX 1650 SUPER's strongest results. The GTX 1650 SUPER's nearest rivals by average score include the AMD Radeon RX 550 (0.2% lower), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (0.4% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (1.5% higher). The K2200's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (0.4% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (0.7% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (1.1% lower). These rival clusters confirm that the K2200 is competing with a much older performance tier, while the GTX 1650 SUPER holds its own against far more recent hardware.