NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 occupy different corners of the GPU landscape, and the benchmark data reflects that split. The GTX 1650 SUPER, a consumer Turing-era card, dominates in modern compute and API-level tests, while the Quadro P4000, a professional Pascal workstation card, holds a clear edge in legacy DirectX workloads and raw rasterization throughput. Deciding between them is not a matter of one being universally faster, but of which workload profile matters more.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 SUPER is the clear winner in the modern compute and graphics API arena. Its most decisive victory comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 43,875 against the Quadro P4000's 36,212, a margin of 21.2%. This suggests that the Turing architecture's compute capabilities, particularly in general-purpose GPU workloads, are significantly stronger per its specifications. It also wins the Geekbench Vulkan test by a similar margin, posting 50,519 versus 41,786, a 20.9% advantage. This indicates that applications leveraging Vulkan's low-level access will see a substantial performance uplift on the GTX 1650 SUPER.

The Quadro P4000, conversely, is the victor in the classic DirectX rasterization tests. It wins Passmark DirectX 11 with a score of 86 versus 73, a 15.1% lead. It also takes Passmark DirectX 9 with 181 versus 148, an 18.2% advantage, and Passmark DirectX 10 with 66 versus 50, a 24.2% lead. These wins align with its higher pixel rate and texture rate, which are fundamental to traditional rendering pipelines. The Quadro P4000 also wins in pure rasterization performance as measured by Passmark G3D, scoring 11,466 against the GTX 1650 SUPER's 10,179, an 11.2% difference.

The data also shows a split in other areas. The Quadro P4000 wins the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test decisively, scoring 1,115 against 352, a massive 68.4% advantage. This is a modern test, but it heavily favors the Quadro's larger memory bus and shading resources. The Quadro also wins Passmark G2D (786 vs 749, a 4.7% lead) and Passmark GPU Compute (4,913 vs 4,477, an 8.9% lead). However, the GTX 1650 SUPER wins the one modern DirectX 12 test in the Passmark suite, scoring 45 against 40, a 12.5% increase.

The Verdict

The choice between these two cards depends entirely on the workload. For users running modern compute tasks, Vulkan-based applications, or OpenCL-heavy workflows, the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the stronger option. Its 21.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 20.9% lead in Geekbench Vulkan show that it extracts more performance from its 1,280 shading units than the Quadro P4000 does from its 1,792. This makes it the better choice for content creation, scientific computing, and any software that has been updated to use modern APIs.

For users entrenched in legacy DirectX 9, 10, and 11 applications, the Quadro P4000 is the safer bet. Its wins in those tests, ranging from 15.1% to 24.2%, are consistent and substantial. Furthermore, its 68.4% victory in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 is a stark demonstration of its raw rendering power, and its 11.2% lead in Passmark G3D confirms that it handles traditional 3D rasterization with more authority. This makes it the pick for older CAD, 3D modeling, or simulation software that relies on these APIs.

The Quadro P4000 also holds an advantage in its memory configuration. It has 8 GB of VRAM compared to 4 GB, and its 256-bit bus provides 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth versus 192.0 GB/s on the GTX 1650 SUPER. While the benchmark scores do not directly show VRAM capacity limits, the larger frame buffer is a practical advantage for high-resolution textures and complex scenes. The GTX 1650 SUPER is the modern, compute-focused card, while the Quadro P4000 is the rasterization-focused professional card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the entire comparison is the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. The Quadro P4000 scores 1,115, which is more than three times the GTX 1650 SUPER's 352. This 68.4% delta is by far the largest gap in any benchmark and suggests that the Quadro's combination of 1,792 shading units, 64 ROPs, and higher memory bandwidth gives it an overwhelming advantage in this particular rendering scenario.

The next most significant wins belong to the GTX 1650 SUPER in the Geekbench suite. In the OpenCL test, it scores 43,875 to 36,212, a 21.2% lead. The Vulkan test is nearly identical, with a score of 50,519 to 41,786, a 20.9% advantage. These two wins are crucial because they represent the modern compute landscape, and they show that the Turing architecture's efficiency at these tasks is far superior to the Pascal architecture.

In the Passmark suite, the Quadro P4000 consistently outperforms the GTX 1650 SUPER in the legacy DirectX tests. The smallest of these wins is in DirectX 11, where the Quadro scores 86 to 73, a 15.1% lead. The largest is in DirectX 10, where it scores 66 to 50, a 24.2% advantage. The DirectX 9 test shows an 18.2% lead with 181 versus 148. These results indicate that the Quadro's higher pixel rate of 94.72 GPixel/s and texture rate of 165.8 GTexel/s provide a tangible benefit in older, more traditional graphics pipelines.

The GTX 1650 SUPER manages only one win in the Passmark suite, taking the DirectX 12 test with a score of 45 against 40, a 12.5% margin. This win is notable because it shows that while the Quadro P4000 dominates in legacy APIs, the GTX 1650 SUPER has the edge in the more modern DirectX 12 path. The Quadro P4000 also wins the remaining tests: Passmark G3D (11,466 vs 10,179, an 11.2% lead), Passmark GPU Compute (4,913 vs 4,477, an 8.9% lead), and Passmark G2D (786 vs 749, a 4.7% lead).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is better for modern compute tasks like OpenCL?

A: The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is significantly better for compute. It scores 43,875 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 21.2% higher than the Quadro P4000's 36,212.

Q: Which GPU wins in older DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 applications?

A: The Quadro P4000 is the winner in legacy DirectX workloads. It beats the GTX 1650 SUPER by 18.2% in DirectX 9 and by 24.2% in DirectX 10.

Q: Is the Quadro P4000 faster in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test?

A: Yes, the Quadro P4000 is much faster. It scores 1,115 compared to 352 for the GTX 1650 SUPER, a 68.4% advantage.

Q: What is the difference in memory size and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has a higher average benchmark score of 11,047, while the Quadro P4000 has an average score of 9,665. The GTX 1650 SUPER sits at the 50th percentile, while the Quadro P4000 is at the 47th.

Q: Does the Quadro P4000 win in the Passmark G3D test?

A: Yes, the Quadro P4000 wins in Passmark G3D with a score of 11,466, which is 11.2% higher than the GTX 1650 SUPER's score of 10,179.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on different architectures and process nodes. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER uses the TU116 chip based on the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 6,600 million transistors on a die size of 284 mm². The Quadro P4000, in contrast, uses the GP104 chip based on the older Pascal architecture, also from TSMC but on a 16 nm process. It houses 7,200 million transistors on a larger die of 314 mm². While the Pascal chip has more transistors, the Turing chip achieves a slightly higher transistor density of 23.2M per mm² versus 22.9M per mm².

These architectural differences manifest in the compute capabilities. The GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 4.416 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 8.832 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, the latter at a 2:1 ratio. The Quadro P4000 offers slightly higher FP32 performance at 5.304 TFLOPS, but its FP16 performance is a minuscule 82.88 GFLOPS, operating at a 1:64 ratio. This explains the GTX 1650 SUPER's dominance in OpenCL and Vulkan compute tests, as it is far more efficient at half-precision and modern compute workloads.

The memory subsystems differ significantly. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory clocked at 12 Gbps effective on a 128-bit bus, yielding 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro P4000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory at 7.6 Gbps effective on a 256-bit bus, yielding a higher 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro also has more of everything in terms of raw resources: 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, compared to 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the GTX 1650 SUPER.

Other physical differences are notable. The GTX 1650 SUPER is a dual-slot card measuring 229 mm in length, while the Quadro P4000 is a single-slot card at 241 mm long. Both use a single 6-pin power connector and have a suggested 300 W PSU. The display outputs differ, with the GTX 1650 SUPER offering 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro P4000 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The launch MSRP for the GTX 1650 SUPER was 159 USD, while the Quadro P4000 launched at 815 USD.