NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000, with the newer card winning both direct comparison benchmarks. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 points against the Quadro K5000's 11,418, a lead of 284.3%. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap that places the GTX 1650 SUPER in a completely different performance tier for compute-heavy workloads.

The Vulkan benchmark tells an even more one-sided story. Here, the GTX 1650 SUPER posts 50,519 points, while the Quadro K5000 manages only 11,169. That translates to a 352.3% advantage for the newer architecture. The delta is so large that it suggests the Quadro K5000 is not merely slower but is operating with fundamental architectural limitations that the Vulkan API exposes. For any user considering these cards side by side, the benchmark results indicate that the GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear choice for modern graphics APIs.

Looking at the broader database context, the GTX 1650 SUPER holds an average benchmark score of 11,047, which places it at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 550 at 11,075 (0.2% behind) and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q at 11,088 (0.4% behind). The Quadro K5000, by contrast, averages 9,637 and sits at the 46th percentile. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M at 9,645, which is essentially a statistical tie at 0.1% difference. The GTX 1650 SUPER's average score is 14.6% higher than the Quadro K5000's, a figure that is not directly listed but is derived from the two averages in the database.

The individual benchmark suite for the GTX 1650 SUPER reveals where its strengths lie. It scores 10,179 in Passmark G3D, 4,477 in Passmark GPU Compute, and 749 in Passmark G2D. The Quadro K5000 has no comparable entries in these specific tests within the database, so the comparison rests on the shared OpenCL and Vulkan results. The wins tally is unambiguous: the GTX 1650 SUPER wins 2 head-to-head tests, while the Quadro K5000 wins 0. No benchmark in the shared set favors the older card, and the magnitude of each victory is substantial.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras of NVIDIA's design philosophy. The GTX 1650 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture, specifically the TU116 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro K5000 uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This process shrink alone explains much of the performance disparity, as the newer node allows for higher clock speeds and better power efficiency.

The transistor counts differ dramatically. The GTX 1650 SUPER packs 6,600 million transistors into a die size of 284 mm², yielding a transistor density of 23.2 million per mm². The Quadro K5000 has 3,540 million transistors on a slightly larger die of 294 mm², resulting in a density of only 12.0 million per mm². Nearly double the transistor density on a comparable die area gives the Turing card a massive computational advantage, even before clock speeds are considered.

Clock speeds reinforce this gap. The GTX 1650 SUPER runs at a base clock of 1530 MHz and boosts to 1725 MHz. The Quadro K5000 is locked at a flat 706 MHz for both base and boost, which is less than half the boost clock of the newer card. Memory speeds also favor the GTX 1650 SUPER: it uses GDDR6 at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective throughput, while the Quadro K5000 uses GDDR5 at 1350 MHz with 5.4 Gbps effective. Although the Quadro K5000 has a wider 256-bit memory bus versus the GTX 1650 SUPER's 128-bit bus, the newer card still achieves higher bandwidth at 192.0 GB/s compared to 172.8 GB/s. The wider bus cannot compensate for the older, slower memory technology.

Shading unit counts tell a nuanced story. The Quadro K5000 has 1,536 shading units and 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), both higher than the GTX 1650 SUPER's 1,280 shading units and 80 TMUs. Both cards have 32 ROPs. However, the raw compute output favors the GTX 1650 SUPER decisively: it delivers 4.416 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 2.169 TFLOPS for the Quadro K5000. The pixel rate is also much higher on the newer card at 55.20 GPixel/s versus 22.59 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 138.0 GTexel/s versus 90.37 GTexel/s. The Quadro K5000's extra shading units are rendered moot by its low clocks and older architecture.

Feature support differs as well. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1, while the Quadro K5000 is limited to DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0. Vulkan support is also newer on the GTX 1650 SUPER at version 1.4, compared to version 1.2.175 on the Quadro K5000. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so that is not a differentiator.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 points, which is 284.3% higher than the Quadro K5000's 11,418 points.

Q: Does the Quadro K5000 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The database records 2 wins for the GTX 1650 SUPER and 0 wins for the Quadro K5000 across the shared tests.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of FP32 compute performance?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 4.416 TFLOPS, while the Quadro K5000 delivers 2.169 TFLOPS, making the newer card roughly twice as powerful in this metric.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each card?

A: Both have 4 GB of memory, but the GTX 1650 SUPER uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K5000 uses GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a density of 23.2 million transistors per mm², compared to the Quadro K5000's 12.0 million per mm².

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each card?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a launch MSRP of 159 USD, and the Quadro K5000 has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | NVIDIA Quadro K5000 |

|----------------|-------------------------------|----------------------|

| Architecture | Turing | Kepler |

| Chip | TU116 | GK104 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,600 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 284 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.2M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1530 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1725 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 172.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 80 | 128 |

| Pixel Rate | 55.20 GPixel/s | 22.59 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 138.0 GTexel/s | 90.37 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.416 TFLOPS | 2.169 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not available |

| TDP | 100 W | 122 W |

| PCIe Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2019-11-21 | 2012-08-16 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 10 | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | GeForce 20 | Quadro Maxwell |

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 SUPER wins in every measurable performance category within the database. Its dominance in OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks makes it the obvious pick for compute tasks, gaming, and any workload that leverages modern graphics APIs. The 12 nm Turing architecture with its higher clocks and greater transistor density gives it a decisive edge in raw throughput, as evidenced by the 352.3% lead in Vulkan and 284.3% lead in OpenCL. For users running contemporary applications, simulation software, or game engines that use Vulkan, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only rational choice between these two.

The Quadro K5000's strengths are not visible in the benchmark data, but its specification sheet suggests where it might still serve a purpose. It has more shading units (1,536 versus 1,280) and more TMUs (128 versus 80), which could theoretically benefit workloads that scale with parallel resource count rather than clock speed. Its 256-bit memory bus, while paired with slower GDDR5, offers a wider path for data movement, which might help in certain memory-intensive professional applications. The card also features dual DVI outputs and dual DisplayPort 1.2 connections, which could be useful in legacy multi-monitor setups that rely on DVI. However, the data shows no benchmark where this translates into a win.

For professional use cases, the Quadro K5000 was released in 2012 and is now end-of-life, as is the GTX 1650 SUPER. The newer card's successor is the GeForce 20 series, while the Quadro K5000's successor is the Quadro Maxwell generation. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has a wider API support footprint, including newer Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1, which the Quadro K5000 cannot match. In any scenario where the two cards are directly compared, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior hardware. The Quadro K5000 only retains relevance in environments that require its specific display output configuration or where software is optimized for Kepler-era features, but the benchmark record provides no evidence of a performance advantage in those contexts.