NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decidedly one-sided contest between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M. Across the two shared tests—Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan—the GTX 1650 SUPER secures a clean sweep, winning both with margins that are not incremental but transformative. The Geekbench OpenCL result shows the GTX 1650 SUPER scoring 43,875 against the Quadro M2000M’s 10,057, a delta of 336.3%. To frame that in practical terms, the newer card delivers over four times the raw compute performance in this API, a gap that will translate directly into faster physics simulations, video encoding, or any OpenCL-accelerated workload. The Vulkan test is even more lopsided: 50,519 versus 9,606, a 425.9% advantage for the GeForce part. This nearly five-fold lead in a modern graphics API underscores how far the older Maxwell architecture has fallen behind in driver optimization and feature support.

These head-to-head deltas are consistent with the overall average benchmark scores. The GTX 1650 SUPER averages 11,047 across all its tested workloads, while the Quadro M2000M averages 9,832. That is a 12.4% gap in the aggregate, but the disparity is far more pronounced in the specific shared tests. The reason is straightforward: the GeForce card’s benchmark suite includes many DirectX and compute tests in which it excels, while the Quadro’s limited suite (only two tests) pulls its average down. Still, the head-to-head data is unambiguous. The GTX 1650 SUPER wins 2 out of 2 tests, and the Quadro M2000M wins none. There is no scenario in the provided facts where the older mobile workstation GPU is competitive.

#### Interpreting the Rivalry Context

The nearestRivals data places the GTX 1650 SUPER in a strange neighborhood. Its average score of 11,047 sits within 0.4% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (both at 11,088), and just 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075). This suggests that, in aggregate benchmarks, the GTX 1650 SUPER is a mid-pack performer, landing in the 50th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro M2000M, by contrast, sits at the 47th percentile, with its closest rival being the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9,846, a -0.1% delta). The practical takeaway is that both cards are near the middle of the pack, but the GeForce part is consistently ahead of its older workstation counterpart in every direct comparison available.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is dramatically faster, scoring 43,875 versus the Quadro M2000M’s 10,057. This represents a 336.3% lead for the GeForce card.

Q: How does the Vulkan performance compare?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50,519 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to the Quadro M2000M’s 9,606. That is a 425.9% advantage, the largest margin in any shared test.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable in overall benchmark averages?

A: No. The GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11,047, while the Quadro M2000M averages 9,832. The GeForce card is roughly 12% faster on average, but the gap is much larger in the specific tests they share.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each card?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER sits in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M2000M is in the 47th percentile. This means the GeForce card is slightly better positioned relative to the broader GPU landscape.

Q: Which card has more wins in the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER wins both head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan). The Quadro M2000M wins zero.

Q: Does the Quadro M2000M have any benchmark where it beats the GTX 1650 SUPER?

A: Based on the provided data, no. The Quadro M2000M has no benchmark scores that surpass the GTX 1650 SUPER in any shared test.

Where Each One Wins

The data is clear: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins in every measurable category. There is no use-case split to be found in the benchmarks. If you are looking at raw compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only choice. Its 4.416 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 138.0 GTexel/s texture rate dwarf the Quadro M2000M’s 1,455.4 GFLOPS and 45.48 GTexel/s. The GeForce card also offers a pixel rate of 55.20 GPixel/s, nearly triple the Quadro’s 18.19 GPixel/s.

The Quadro M2000M’s only potential advantage lies in its form factor and power profile, not performance. As an MXM Module with a 55 W TDP and no power connectors, it is designed for portable workstations where space and thermal headroom are at a premium. The GTX 1650 SUPER, by contrast, is a dual-slot card requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. If the task is strictly about maximizing frame rates or compute throughput, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the unequivocal winner. If the task requires a low-power, mobile-friendly module that still provides acceptable performance for professional applications, the Quadro M2000M has a niche, but it is a niche defined by physical constraints, not performance.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses a TU116 chip built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, containing 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die. The Quadro M2000M uses a GM107 chip on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC, but with just 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: 23.2M per mm² for the GeForce part versus 12.6M per mm² for the Quadro. Clock speeds also favor the newer card, with a base of 1530 MHz and boost of 1725 MHz, compared to the Quadro’s 1098 MHz base and 1137 MHz boost.

Memory configurations are superficially similar (both have 4 GB), but the type and speed differ. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses GDDR6 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M2000M uses GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for just 80.19 GB/s. The bus width is the same at 128 bit, but the effective bandwidth is more than double on the GeForce card. The shading units are also starkly different: 1280 on the GTX 1650 SUPER versus 640 on the Quadro. The TMU count is 80 versus 40, and the ROP count is 32 versus 16. The FP32 compute is 4.416 TFLOPS versus 1,455.4 GFLOPS, and the GTX 1650 SUPER adds FP16 support at 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1), which the Quadro lacks entirely.

Power and physical specifications are where the Quadro M2000M has a foothold. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a 100 W TDP, is dual-slot, and measures 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. The Quadro M2000M has a 55 W TDP, is an MXM Module, and has no listed dimensions. The GeForce card requires a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W PSU, while the Quadro has no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GeForce, and MXM-A (3.0) for the Quadro. Display outputs are another divergence, with the GTX 1650 SUPER offering 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro’s outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent.”

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The GTX 1650 SUPER is built on NVIDIA’s Turing architecture, while the Quadro M2000M is based on the older Maxwell architecture. This is not a minor refresh; it is a fundamental shift in design philosophy. Turing introduces features that Maxwell simply cannot support, even though neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The process node difference (12 nm versus 28 nm) allows the GTX 1650 SUPER to pack 6,600 million transistors into a 284 mm² die, achieving a density of 23.2M per mm². The Quadro M2000M manages 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, a density of 12.6M per mm². This density advantage translates into more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, as well as higher clock speeds at a similar power envelope.

The memory architecture also reflects a generational leap. GDDR6 on the GTX 1650 SUPER operates at 12 Gbps effective, compared to GDDR5 at 5 Gbps effective on the Quadro. This is why the bandwidth is 192.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s, despite the same 128-bit bus. The DirectX support differs too: the GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro M2000M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the underlying hardware capabilities are not identical. The GTX 1650 SUPER also has a higher pixel rate (55.20 GPixel/s versus 18.19 GPixel/s) and texture rate (138.0 GTexel/s versus 45.48 GTexel/s), which directly impacts visual fidelity and rendering throughput. In short, the Turing-based card is a modern design with a clear efficiency and capability advantage over the Maxwell-based Quadro.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior product in nearly every metric that matters for performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 336.3% and 425.9%, has a higher average benchmark score (11,047 versus 9,832), and sits in a higher percentile (50th versus 47th). Its specifications are uniformly better: more shading units, higher clocks, faster memory, and a more modern architecture. The only areas where the Quadro M2000M can claim any sort of advantage are its lower power draw (55 W versus 100 W) and its MXM form factor, which is designed for mobile workstations. If you are building a desktop system or have the space and power for a dual-slot card, the GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear choice. If you are constrained to a portable workstation that uses MXM modules and cannot supply a 6-pin power connector, the Quadro M2000M is the only option that fits, but you will be accepting a massive performance penalty. For anyone who prioritizes raw compute, gaming, or GPU-accelerated tasks, the verdict is unambiguous: the GTX 1650 SUPER wins decisively.