NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 records an average benchmark score of 7472, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M averages 6481. The GTX 1650 also sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the M5000M's 37th percentile.

Q: How does the GeForce GTX 1650 compare to the Quadro M5000M in compute workloads?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 scores 29629 versus 22920 for the M5000M, a 29.3% advantage. In Passmark GPU Compute, the GTX 1650 leads 3048 to 2756, a 10.6% advantage.

Q: Which GPU performs better in DirectX 12 workloads?

A: The GeForce GTX 1650 wins the Passmark DirectX 12 test with a score of 35 against the M5000M's 29, a 20.7% margin. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The GeForce GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 128.1 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the two GPUs differ in transistor density?

A: The GTX 1650, built on a 12 nm process, has a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The M5000M, built on 28 nm, has a density of 13.1M per mm².

Q: Which card wins the most head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The GeForce GTX 1650 wins all 9 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Quadro M5000M wins none.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive overall win for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650. It leads in every single recorded benchmark, and its average score of 7472 is 15.3% higher than the M5000M's 6481. The GTX 1650's percentile ranking of 40 versus 37 further confirms its stronger standing in the broader GPU landscape.

For gamers and general desktop users, the GTX 1650 is the clear choice. It wins every DirectX test, from the Passmark DirectX 9 score of 124 versus 119, up to the DirectX 12 score of 35 versus 29. The 32.8% lead in Geekbench Vulkan (33042 versus 24875) also suggests better modern API performance.

The Quadro M5000M does have its own strengths, but they are not reflected in these benchmark results. It carries 8 GB of memory versus 4 GB, and its 256-bit bus provides 160.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 128.1 GB/s. For workloads that depend heavily on memory capacity rather than raw compute throughput, the M5000M could still be relevant. The recorded data, however, shows no benchmark where the M5000M comes out ahead.

The GTX 1650 is also the more efficient design in terms of power draw, rated at 75 W versus 100 W for the M5000M. It achieves its performance lead while consuming less power, which is a meaningful advantage. The M5000M's MXM form factor makes it a mobile workstation part, while the GTX 1650 is a dual-slot desktop card. Users with MXM-based laptops may only have the M5000M as an option, but for anyone who can choose freely, the GTX 1650 is the stronger performer across the board.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The GeForce GTX 1650 wins all nine head-to-head comparisons. The largest margin appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the GTX 1650 scores 33042 against 24875, a 32.8% lead. This is the single biggest gap between the two cards in any test.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a similar pattern: 29629 for the GTX 1650 versus 22920 for the M5000M, a 29.3% advantage. These two compute-oriented tests demonstrate that the GTX 1650's Turing architecture delivers substantially higher throughput in both OpenCL and Vulkan environments.

In the Passmark suite, the GTX 1650 leads in every DirectX version. DirectX 12 shows a 20.7% gap (35 versus 29), DirectX 10 shows an 11.4% gap (39 versus 35), DirectX 11 shows a 7.4% gap (58 versus 54), and DirectX 9 shows a 4.2% gap (124 versus 119). The margin narrows with older API versions, suggesting the M5000M is relatively more competitive in legacy workloads, but it still loses each one.

The Passmark G3D test, a general 3D performance indicator, gives the GTX 1650 a score of 7880 versus 7062, an 11.6% lead. The Passmark G2D test, which measures 2D graphics performance, shows a 17.9% gap with 561 versus 476. The Passmark GPU Compute test rounds out the sweep with 3048 versus 2756, a 10.6% lead.

Across all nine tests, the average margin of victory for the GTX 1650 is roughly 16.2%. The M5000M's best relative performance comes in DirectX 9, where it trails by only 4.2%, while its worst comes in Vulkan, where it trails by 32.8%. The data shows a consistent pattern: the GTX 1650 is faster in every measured category, with the gap widening as workloads become more modern.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The GeForce GTX 1650 operates at a base clock of 1485 MHz with a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The Quadro M5000M runs at 962 MHz base and 1051 MHz boost. The GTX 1650's clocks are substantially higher, which contributes to its performance advantage despite having fewer execution units.

Memory configurations also differ significantly. The GTX 1650 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The M5000M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s. The M5000M has the advantage in both memory capacity and bandwidth, but the benchmark results show this does not translate into higher scores.

The compute units are distributed differently. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The M5000M has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Despite having fewer units, the GTX 1650 achieves higher pixel and texture rates in some cases: 53.28 GPixel/s versus 67.26 GPixel/s for the M5000M, and 93.24 GTexel/s versus 100.9 GTexel/s. The M5000M leads in both raw rates, but the GTX 1650's higher clocks narrow the gap.

FP32 performance favors the M5000M slightly: 3.229 TFLOPS versus 2.984 TFLOPS. The GTX 1650 also supports FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the M5000M has no recorded FP16 figure.

Power consumption differs as well. The GTX 1650 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The M5000M has a TDP of 100 W and no suggested PSU listed. The GTX 1650 requires no power connectors, and the M5000M also uses no power connectors, though its MXM module format typically draws power through the motherboard.

Physical dimensions are only recorded for the GTX 1650: 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. The M5000M uses an MXM module form factor with no listed dimensions.

Architecture Differences

The GeForce GTX 1650 is built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture, using the TU117 chip fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 200 mm² and contains 4,700 million transistors, resulting in a density of 23.5M transistors per mm². The Quadro M5000M uses the older Maxwell 2.0 architecture, with the GM204 chip on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. Its die is much larger at 398 mm² and contains 5,200 million transistors, but the density is only 13.1M per mm².

The node difference is stark: 12 nm versus 28 nm. This explains why the GTX 1650 achieves higher clock speeds and better performance per transistor despite having fewer of them. The GTX 1650's base clock of 1485 MHz is 54% higher than the M5000M's 962 MHz, and its boost clock of 1665 MHz is 58% higher than 1051 MHz.

Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 1650 belongs to the GeForce 16 generation, with the GeForce 10 series as its predecessor and GeForce 20 as its successor. The M5000M belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M generation, with Quadro Kepler-M as its predecessor and Quadro Pascal-M as its successor.

The GTX 1650 is a desktop card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and display outputs including DVI, HDMI 2.0, and DisplayPort 1.4a. The M5000M is a mobile workstation part with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and display outputs that are portable device dependent. The GTX 1650 was released in April 2019, while the M5000M was released in August 2015, a gap of nearly four years that explains the architectural generational difference.

The GTX 1650's launch MSRP is 149 USD. The M5000M has no recorded launch price. Both cards are end-of-life in production status. The GTX 1650's smaller die, higher density, and more modern architecture collectively drive its benchmark superiority, even though the M5000M has more shading units, more memory, and wider memory bus.