NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and NVIDIA Quadro K5100M represent two very different eras of GPU design, despite both being NVIDIA products with end-of-life status. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a Turing-architecture desktop card from 2019, while the K5100M is a Kepler-architecture mobile workstation module from 2013. Benchmark data shows the GTX 1650 SUPER holds a decisive edge in compute performance, but the K5100M offers advantages in memory capacity and form factor that matter for specific professional workloads. The average benchmark scores tell the story: the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 11047 versus 10043 for the K5100M, a difference that places them at the 50th and 48th percentiles of all GPUs respectively.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in compute workloads?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER is dramatically faster in OpenCL compute. In the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43875 against 11771 for the K5100M, a 272.7% advantage. This is the only benchmark where both cards have overlapping results.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The K5100M has twice the memory capacity at 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but the GTX 1650 SUPER has higher bandwidth at 192.0 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. The K5100M's larger frame buffer comes with slower GDDR5 memory running at 3.6 Gbps effective, while the GTX 1650 SUPER uses faster GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective.

Q: Are these cards suitable for modern DirectX 12 games?

A: Both support DirectX 12, but with different feature levels. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K5100M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). This means the GTX 1650 SUPER can handle more advanced DX12 features that newer games may require.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: Both cards have a 100 W TDP. The GTX 1650 SUPER requires a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested power supply, while the K5100M uses no external power connectors due to its MXM module design.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan support?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER supports Vulkan 1.4, while the K5100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The newer Vulkan version on the GTX 1650 SUPER provides better compatibility with recent applications and games.

Q: How do they compare in terms of transistor density and process node?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER uses a 12 nm process with 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, yielding a density of 23.2M transistors per mm². The K5100M uses a larger 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding only 12.0M transistors per mm².

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The GTX 1650 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture with the TU116 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 12 nm process. It packs 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². The K5100M uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. It contains 3,540 million transistors across a larger 294 mm² die, resulting in a much lower density of 12.0M per mm².

The compute resources differ significantly in configuration. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The K5100M has more shading units at 1536 and more TMUs at 128, but the same 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the GTX 1650 SUPER achieves far higher clock speeds: 1530 MHz base and 1725 MHz boost versus the K5100M's fixed 771 MHz for both base and boost. This clock advantage translates directly into raw throughput.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The K5100M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus but only achieves 115.2 GB/s bandwidth due to its slower 900 MHz memory clock (3.6 Gbps effective). The GTX 1650 SUPER's memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), which more than compensates for the narrower bus.

Feature support reflects their respective generations. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 1650 SUPER also supports FP16 compute at 8.832 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the K5100M has no FP16 capability listed. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 SUPER wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its FP32 throughput of 4.416 TFLOPS nearly doubles the K5100M's 2.369 TFLOPS. Pixel fill rate favors the GTX 1650 SUPER at 55.20 GPixel/s versus 24.67 GPixel/s, and texture rate favors it at 138.0 GTexel/s versus 98.69 GTexel/s. The Geekbench OpenCL result confirms this dominance with a 272.7% lead.

The K5100M wins in memory capacity, offering 8 GB versus 4 GB. This matters for workloads that need large datasets resident in VRAM, such as certain rendering, simulation, or machine learning tasks. The K5100M also wins on form factor flexibility—it is an MXM Module with no power connectors, designed for portable devices, while the GTX 1650 SUPER is a dual-slot card requiring a 6-pin connector and 300 W power supply.

For professional mobile workstations, the K5100M's MXM-B (3.0) interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs make it suitable for laptops and compact systems. The GTX 1650 SUPER's display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a) are typical for desktop use. The K5100M also lacks a suggested PSU rating, reflecting its integration into pre-configured systems.

Specification Differences

• Process Node: 12 nm (GTX 1650 SUPER) vs 28 nm (K5100M)
• Transistors: 6,600 million vs 3,540 million
• Die Size: 284 mm² vs 294 mm²
• Transistor Density: 23.2M / mm² vs 12.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1530 MHz vs 771 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1725 MHz vs 771 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) vs 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs 8 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6 vs GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 192.0 GB/s vs 115.2 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1280 vs 1536
• TMUs: 80 vs 128
• ROPs: 32 vs 32
• Pixel Rate: 55.20 GPixel/s vs 24.67 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 138.0 GTexel/s vs 98.69 GTexel/s
• FP32: 4.416 TFLOPS vs 2.369 TFLOPS
• FP16: 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) vs null
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs 1.2.175
• Slot Width: Dual-slot vs MXM Module
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin vs None
• Suggested PSU: 300 W vs null
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs MXM-B (3.0)
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a vs Portable Device Dependent
• Dimensions: 229 mm x 111 mm x 35 mm vs null

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only overlapping benchmark between these two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is lopsided. The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43875, while the K5100M scores 11771. This represents a 272.7% advantage for the GTX 1650 SUPER, meaning it delivers nearly four times the OpenCL compute performance. This single data point encapsulates the generational leap between Kepler and Turing architectures.

Looking at individual benchmark suites, the GTX 1650 SUPER shows consistent strength across the Passmark tests: 50 in DirectX 10, 73 in DirectX 11, 45 in DirectX 12, 148 in DirectX 9, 749 in G2D, 10179 in G3D, and 4477 in GPU compute. It also scores 352 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 43875 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 50519 in Geekbench Vulkan. The K5100M only has two benchmarks listed: 8315 in Geekbench Metal and 11771 in Geekbench OpenCL.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the GTX 1650 SUPER's superiority. Its average of 11047 places it slightly below the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11075, -0.2% delta) and just above the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (10883, +1.5% delta). The K5100M's average of 10043 puts it just above the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10070, -0.3% delta) and slightly below the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10013, +0.3% delta). These nearest-rival comparisons show both cards sitting in a similar performance tier, yet the GTX 1650 SUPER holds a roughly 10% average score advantage over the K5100M.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the GTX 1650 SUPER as the superior performer. Its 272.7% lead in OpenCL compute, higher pixel and texture rates, and significantly faster memory bandwidth make it the obvious choice for any workload that depends on raw GPU throughput. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has better API support with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring broader compatibility with modern software. Its 12 nm process node and Turing architecture deliver efficiency that the 28 nm Kepler design cannot match.

However, the K5100M remains relevant for a specific niche. Its 8 GB memory capacity doubles the GTX 1650 SUPER's 4 GB, which can be critical for applications that need to hold large models or textures in VRAM. Its MXM module form factor with no external power connectors makes it the only choice for portable workstations where the GTX 1650 SUPER's dual-slot PCIe card physically cannot fit. For users with an existing MXM-B system that requires a Kepler-generation Quadro, the K5100M offers a drop-in upgrade path.

For desktop users building or upgrading a system, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear recommendation. It delivers roughly 10% higher average benchmark scores, nearly double the FP32 throughput, and vastly superior memory bandwidth, all within the same 100 W TDP envelope. The K5100M should only be considered if the 8 GB frame buffer is an absolute requirement or if the MXM form factor is mandatory. In every other measurable way, the GTX 1650 SUPER wins.