NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has a higher average benchmark score of 7906, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 trails at 7472. However, the GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile versus the Quadro’s 41st percentile, meaning both are positioned near the lower-middle of the GPU performance distribution.

Q: In the only direct head-to-head benchmark, how large is the performance gap?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1650 scores 29629 against the Quadro K4100M’s 9149, a delta of -69.1% from the Quadro’s perspective. This translates to the GTX 1650 delivering roughly 3.2 times the raw compute score.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The Quadro K4100M packs 1152 shading units and 96 TMUs, while the GTX 1650 has 896 shading units and 56 TMUs. Despite having fewer of both, the GTX 1650 achieves a higher texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s versus the Quadro’s 67.78 GTexel/s, thanks to its much higher clock speeds.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the Quadro uses a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 1650 uses a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1650’s faster memory clock (8 Gbps effective vs 3.2 Gbps) compensates for its narrower bus.

Q: Which GPU supports newer API versions?

A: The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K4100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), Vulkan 1.2.175, and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 1650’s higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version indicate better support for modern rendering workloads.

Q: How do the release dates and production statuses compare?

A: The Quadro K4100M launched on 2013-07-22, while the GTX 1650 launched on 2019-04-22. Both are marked as end-of-life, but the GTX 1650’s launch MSRP of 149 USD is substantially lower than the Quadro’s 1,499 USD launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear but nuanced picture. If the priority is raw compute performance in OpenCL-based workloads, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the definitive choice — its 29629 score in Geekbench OpenCL dwarfs the Quadro K4100M’s 9149. The GTX 1650 also offers superior pixel throughput (53.28 GPixel/s vs 16.94 GPixel/s) and nearly double the FP32 throughput (2.984 TFLOPS vs 1.627 TFLOPS), all within a lower 75 W TDP.

However, the Quadro K4100M is not without merit. Its higher average benchmark score (7906 vs 7472) and superior nearest-rival positioning (closest to the GeForce GTX 460 at -0.2% delta) suggest it holds its own in mixed workloads. The Quadro’s 256-bit memory bus and 4 GB GDDR5 configuration may also appeal to users with legacy professional applications that favor wider memory interfaces.

For most modern users, the GTX 1650 wins outright on compute, efficiency, and API support. The Quadro K4100M, being nearly six years older, is only sensible in niche scenarios where its MXM form factor or specific professional driver ecosystem is required. Data-driven verdict: the GTX 1650 is the superior all-rounder, while the Quadro remains a specialized relic.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one direct benchmark comparison exists in the data: Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 1650 scores 29629, while the Quadro K4100M scores 9149. The delta percentage of -69.1% indicates the GTX 1650 is roughly 224% faster in this test. This is a massive margin, reflecting fundamental architectural and clock-speed advantages.

Beyond the direct comparison, the broader benchmark suites reinforce the GTX 1650’s superiority. In PassMark G3D, the GTX 1650 scores 7880, while the Quadro’s average benchmark score of 7906 comes from only two tests (Geekbench Metal and OpenCL). The GTX 1650’s PassMark DirectX 11 score of 58 and DirectX 9 score of 124 show strength in legacy API paths, while its PassMark GPU Compute score of 3048 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 33042 highlight modern compute potential.

The Quadro’s Geekbench Metal score of 6662 is its only other data point, and it falls short of the GTX 1650’s Vulkan result. When comparing average scores, the Quadro’s 7906 edges out the GTX 1650’s 7472, but this is misleading — the Quadro’s average is skewed by only two tests, both compute-oriented, while the GTX 1650’s average spans ten diverse tests including rasterization and 2D performance.

The nearest-rival data further contextualizes performance. The Quadro K4100M sits within 0.2% of the GeForce GTX 460 (7925) and within 1.8% of the GTX 650 Ti (8053). The GTX 1650 sits within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447) and within 1% of the Intel Arc A310 (7550). These groupings suggest the Quadro punches above its age, but the GTX 1650’s direct OpenCL result places it in a different performance tier entirely.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply on process technology. The Quadro K4100M uses a 28 nm TSMC node, while the GTX 1650 uses a 12 nm TSMC node. This translates to transistor density: the Quadro packs 3,540 million transistors across 294 mm² (12.0M / mm²), whereas the GTX 1650 crams 4,700 million transistors into 200 mm² (23.5M / mm²).

Clock speeds tell a similar story of generational leap. The Quadro runs at a fixed 706 MHz base and boost, with memory at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The GTX 1650 boosts to 1665 MHz from a 1485 MHz base, with memory at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The GTX 1650’s boost clock is 2.36 times higher than the Quadro’s.

Memory configurations differ in bus width and bandwidth. The Quadro uses a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth; the GTX 1650 uses a 128-bit bus but achieves 128.1 GB/s due to faster memory. Both have 4 GB GDDR5 and 32 ROPs, but the GTX 1650 has fewer shading units (896 vs 1152) and TMUs (56 vs 96).

Physical and interface specifications diverge completely. The Quadro is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The GTX 1650 is a dual-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, measuring 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width, with outputs including 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Power requirements favor the GTX 1650: 75 W TDP versus the Quadro’s 100 W, with neither card requiring external power connectors. The GTX 1650 suggests a 250 W PSU, while the Quadro lists none.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational. The Quadro K4100M is built on Kepler (GK104 chip), while the GTX 1650 uses Turing (TU117 chip). Kepler dates to the Quadro Kepler-M generation, whereas Turing belongs to the GeForce 16 series.

The foundry and node differences are stark: both use TSMC, but the Quadro’s 28 nm process versus the GTX 1650’s 12 nm process represents a full node-and-a-half jump. This explains the GTX 1650’s 23.5M / mm² transistor density versus the Quadro’s 12.0M / mm² — nearly double the density.

Compute capabilities reflect the architectural evolution. The GTX 1650 offers FP16 performance of 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1), which the Quadro lacks entirely (FP16 is null). The GTX 1650’s FP32 of 2.984 TFLOPS nearly doubles the Quadro’s 1.627 TFLOPS. Pixel rate jumps from 16.94 GPixel/s on the Quadro to 53.28 GPixel/s on the GTX 1650, and texture rate from 67.78 GTexel/s to 93.24 GTexel/s.

API support shows the Turing advantage. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro only manages DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Neither card features ray tracing or tensor cores, as both have null values for RT and tensor cores.

Release lineage differs: the Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and successor is Quadro Maxwell-M, while the GTX 1650’s predecessor is GeForce 10 and successor is GeForce 20. The GTX 1650 launched on 2019-04-22, nearly six years after the Quadro’s 2013-07-22 debut.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins decisively in modern compute benchmarks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 29629 is over three times the Quadro’s 9149. The GTX 1650 also excels in rasterization throughput, with 53.28 GPixel/s versus 16.94 GPixel/s, and in texturing, with 93.24 GTexel/s versus 67.78 GTexel/s. Its FP32 output of 2.984 TFLOPS and FP16 capability of 5.967 TFLOPS make it suitable for contemporary gaming and compute tasks. The GTX 1650’s Vulkan 1.4 support and DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level position it for modern API workloads, while its 75 W TDP and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface make it an easy drop-in for standard desktop builds.

NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins in the narrow category of legacy professional form factors. Its MXM Module design and MXM-B (3.0) interface target mobile workstations where the GTX 1650’s dual-slot, 229 mm length cannot fit. The Quadro’s 256-bit memory bus provides 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, which, while lower than the GTX 1650’s 128.1 GB/s, may benefit certain memory-latency-sensitive professional workloads. Its higher average benchmark score (7906 vs 7472) also suggests that in the specific mix of Geekbench Metal and OpenCL tests, the Quadro edges ahead. The Quadro’s nearest rival positioning (within 0.2% of the GTX 460) indicates it remains competitive within its aging peer group.

For users who must choose between these two, the data overwhelmingly favors the GTX 1650 for performance, efficiency, and API modernity. The Quadro K4100M is only rational when the MXM form factor is a hard requirement — a scenario that the benchmark data cannot fully capture, but which the specification sheet makes clear.