GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data presents a strikingly lopsided comparison. The single shared benchmark between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are not close. The GTX 1650 scores 29629, while the Quadro 5000 manages only 7289. This yields a delta of 306.5%, meaning the GTX 1650 is roughly four times faster in this compute-oriented workload. It is a decisive victory for the newer card, and it sets the tone for the entire comparison. There are no other head-to-head tests to examine, so this single metric carries the weight of the entire benchmark section. The data shows a clear winner in every measurable way, with the GTX 1650 taking the only available win.

When placed in the context of their respective peer groups, the gap is further emphasized. The GTX 1650’s average benchmark score of 7472 is only 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M, which scores 7447, and 0.4% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 750. It also sits just 1% behind the Intel Arc A310, which scores 7550. This places the GTX 1650 in a competitive mid-range bracket. The Quadro 5000, by contrast, has an average score of 7289, which is 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile. While the delta between the two cards is enormous, their individual standings among rivals are similar in terms of percentage margins, yet the absolute scores are what matter. The GTX 1650’s 7472 average vastly outstrips the Quadro 5000’s 7289. The benchmark results indicate that the GTX 1650 is in a different performance class entirely.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different eras of GPU design. The GTX 1650 is built on the Turing architecture using the TU117 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process node at TSMC. In contrast, the Quadro 5000 uses the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, manufactured on a much older 40 nm process. This process difference is stark: the GTX 1650 packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The Quadro 5000, meanwhile, houses 3,100 million transistors on a substantially larger 529 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 5.9M per mm². The data suggests the newer node allows for nearly four times the transistor density, which is a primary driver of the performance disparity.

Core configurations also differ significantly. The GTX 1650 features 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro 5000 is configured with 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. While the Quadro has more ROPs, the GTX 1650’s massive advantage in shading units and TMUs leads to far higher theoretical throughput. This is reflected in the pixel and texture rates: the GTX 1650 delivers 53.28 GPixel/s and 93.24 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 5000 manages only 11.29 GPixel/s and 22.57 GTexel/s. Furthermore, the FP32 compute performance is 2.984 TFLOPS for the GTX 1650 versus just 722.3 GFLOPS for the Quadro 5000. The GTX 1650 also supports FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro 5000’s specifications.

Memory subsystems also reflect the generational leap. The GTX 1650 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 320-bit bus, yet its bandwidth is slightly lower at 120.0 GB/s. The effective memory clock for the GTX 1650 is 8 Gbps, compared to the Quadro 5000’s 3 Gbps. The GTX 1650’s higher clock speed compensates for the narrower bus, resulting in superior bandwidth. In terms of connectivity, the GTX 1650 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 5000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. API support also diverges, with the GTX 1650 supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Quadro 5000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and offers no Vulkan support. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the GTX 1650 wins in every measurable scenario. The only head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, is a total victory for the GTX 1650. This suggests the GTX 1650 is the superior choice for any compute-heavy application that leverages OpenCL. The architecture differences reinforce this, as the GTX 1650’s higher shading unit count, faster clocks, and modern process node give it a clear edge in parallel processing tasks. Its higher pixel and texture rates also indicate better performance in traditional 3D rendering workloads, even though no direct gaming benchmarks are present in the data.

The Quadro 5000, while losing the compute benchmark, still has a theoretical niche. Its 40 ROPs are more than the GTX 1650’s 32, which could imply better performance in fill-rate-limited scenarios, though the pixel rate data contradicts this, showing the GTX 1650 is far faster. The Quadro 5000’s wider 320-bit memory bus is a design choice for professional workloads, but the lower clock speed negates any bandwidth advantage. The only area where the Quadro 5000 does not lose outright is in its role as a legacy professional card, but the data does not provide any benchmark wins to support a use-case advantage. The GTX 1650’s support for modern APIs like Vulkan and DirectX 12_1 makes it more future-proof for newer software, while the Quadro 5000’s lack of Vulkan support is a significant limitation. The data unequivocally points to the GTX 1650 as the winner for any task, from compute to graphics.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the superior product in nearly every specification and the only winner in the sole head-to-head benchmark. Its 306.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is a massive margin that cannot be overlooked. Any user comparing these two cards for compute tasks should choose the GTX 1650 without hesitation. The architecture differences support this verdict, as the GTX 1650’s Turing architecture, 12 nm process, and 896 shading units provide a generational leap over the Fermi-based Quadro 5000. The GTX 1650 also offers a higher average benchmark score of 7472 compared to the Quadro 5000’s 7289, and it holds a better position relative to its nearest rivals, being only 1% behind the Intel Arc A310, whereas the Quadro 5000 is only 1.7% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580.

The Quadro 5000, despite its professional branding and higher launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, is simply outclassed. Its 40 nm process, lower core count, and older architecture result in significantly lower performance metrics across the board. The only specification where it does not trail is in ROP count, but this does not translate into a benchmark win. For a user seeking maximum performance, the GTX 1650 is the clear choice. The Quadro 5000’s only potential advantage lies in its historical role as a professional workstation card, but the data shows no measurable benefit over the GTX 1650 in any tested workload. Based on the available facts, the GTX 1650 is the definitive pick for anyone who needs a capable GPU today.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has an average score of 7289.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 29629, while the Quadro 5000 scores 7289, giving the GTX 1650 a 306.5% advantage.

Q: Do both cards support the same level of DirectX?

A: No, the GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, while the Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Quadro 5000 wins?

A: No, the data shows the GTX 1650 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, and it has more total wins (1) compared to the Quadro 5000 (0).

Q: What are the memory sizes of the two cards?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 | NVIDIA Quadro 5000 |

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

| Architecture | Turing | Fermi |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2.5 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory Clock | 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.1 GB/s | 120.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 896 | 352 |

| TMUs | 56 | 44 |

| ROPs | 32 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 53.28 GPixel/s | 11.29 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 93.24 GTexel/s | 22.57 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.984 TFLOPS | 722.3 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1) | null |

| TDP | 75 W | 152 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

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

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | null |

| Length | 229 mm (9 inches) | 248 mm (9.8 inches) |

| Width | 35 mm (1.4 inches) | null |

| Launch MSRP | 149 USD | 2,499 USD |