NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2200 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is not close: the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 takes 7 of the 9 recorded head-to-head tests, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins only 2. That alone tells you these cards were built for different jobs, even though both are end-of-life products from NVIDIA.

The Quadro P2200 dominates in legacy DirectX workloads and compute. Its biggest margins come in Passmark DirectX 9 (167 vs 124, a 34.7% lead), Passmark GPU Compute (3921 vs 3048, a 28.6% lead), and Passmark DirectX 11 (70 vs 58, a 20.7% lead). It also wins Passmark G3D by 18.8% (9364 vs 7880) and Passmark DirectX 10 by 15.4% (45 vs 39). For any workload that leans on older APIs, raw shader throughput, or general compute, the P2200 is the clear pick.

The GTX 1650 fights back in two specific areas. It wins Geekbench Vulkan by 5.1% (33042 vs 31351) and Passmark DirectX 12 by 5.7% (35 vs 33). Those are modern, low-level API tests, and they hint at where the Turing architecture has an edge. The GTX 1650 also wins Geekbench OpenCL by a smaller margin than the raw numbers suggest: 29629 vs 32344, a 9.2% loss, so that one still goes to the P2200.

If you are sorting by use case, the pattern is simple. The P2200 is for workstation-style tasks, old API compatibility, and compute-heavy workloads. The GTX 1650 is for modern API gaming and Vulkan-based applications, though its wins are narrow. The data does not support calling the GTX 1650 a faster card overall; it supports calling it a better card for specific modern API scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures, and that shows up across nearly every technical field.

The Quadro P2200 uses the GP106 chip on the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 22.0M / mm². The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip on the Turing architecture, also TSMC, but on a 12 nm node. It has 4,700 million transistors on the same 200 mm² die, for a density of 23.5M / mm². So the GTX 1650 has slightly more transistors in the same space, but the P2200 still wins most benchmarks.

Shading resources differ substantially. The P2200 has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is a 42.9% advantage in shading units for the P2200, which explains its higher pixel rate (59.72 GPixel/s vs 53.28 GPixel/s) and texture rate (119.4 GTexel/s vs 93.24 GTexel/s). Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The FP32 numbers tell the same story: the P2200 delivers 3.822 TFLOPS, while the GTX 1650 delivers 2.984 TFLOPS. But FP16 is where the architectures diverge sharply. The P2200 manages only 59.72 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:64 ratio, meaning FP16 is heavily gimped. The GTX 1650 delivers 5.967 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, so it runs FP16 at twice FP32 speed. If any workload uses FP16, the GTX 1650 wins by a massive margin, even though the P2200 wins FP32.

Memory is another split. The P2200 has 5 GB of GDDR5X on a 160-bit bus, for 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth at 10 Gbps effective. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, for 128.1 GB/s at 8 Gbps effective. The P2200 has more memory, faster memory, and a wider bus. That 56.3% bandwidth advantage matters for texture-heavy and compute workloads.

Both cards share the same API support: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16. Both have a 75 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU. Neither needs external power connectors. The P2200 is single-slot and 201 mm long; the GTX 1650 is dual-slot, 229 mm long, and 35 mm wide. Display outputs also differ: the P2200 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 1650 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the Quadro P2200 is Passmark G2D, where it scores 881 against 561, a 57% lead. This is a 2D graphics test, and it reflects the P2200's workstation heritage. The next biggest win is Passmark DirectX 9 at 34.7% (167 vs 124), followed by Passmark GPU Compute at 28.6% (3921 vs 3048). These are not small margins; they represent real performance gaps in legacy and compute scenarios.

Passmark DirectX 11 gives the P2200 a 20.7% win (70 vs 58), and Passmark G3D gives it an 18.8% win (9364 vs 7880). The G3D score is the broadest gaming proxy in this list, and the P2200 leads it by nearly a fifth. Passmark DirectX 10 is a 15.4% win (45 vs 39). Geekbench OpenCL rounds out the P2200's wins at 9.2% (32344 vs 29629).

The GTX 1650's two wins are smaller. Geekbench Vulkan is 33042 vs 31351, a 5.1% lead. Passmark DirectX 12 is 35 vs 33, a 5.7% lead. Both are modern API tests, and both go the same direction, but neither margin is large enough to flip the overall picture. The average benchmark score reflects this: the P2200 sits at 8686, while the GTX 1650 sits at 7472, a 16.2% gap.

Percentile placement reinforces the difference. The P2200 lands at the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1650 lands at the 40th. The P2200's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (0.7% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (0.7% behind), the AMD FirePro W5170M (1.1% ahead), and the Intel Arc A380 (1.5% ahead). The GTX 1650's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% ahead), the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% ahead), the AMD Radeon R7 350 (0.6% ahead), and the Intel Arc A310 (1% behind). In both cases, the rival pool is tight, but the P2200 sits higher in the overall distribution.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in overall gaming benchmarks?

A: The Quadro P2200 wins Passmark G3D by 18.8% (9364 vs 7880) and also leads in DirectX 9, 10, and 11. The GTX 1650 only wins DirectX 12 by 5.7% and Vulkan by 5.1%.

Q: Does the GTX 1650 have any major advantage?

A: Yes, in FP16 compute. The GTX 1650 delivers 5.967 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, while the P2200 manages only 59.72 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:64 ratio. It also wins Geekbench Vulkan and Passmark DirectX 12.

Q: Why does the P2200 win so many compute tests?

A: It has 1280 shading units versus 896, 80 TMUs versus 56, 40 ROPs versus 32, and 200.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 128.1 GB/s. It also has 5 GB of GDDR5X versus 4 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Are these cards power hungry?

A: No. Both have a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has better display output options?

A: The P2200 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, which suits multi-monitor workstation setups. The GTX 1650 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more typical for consumer use.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The P2200 sits at the 44th percentile, with rivals within 1.5% either way, including the GTX 460 v2 and Intel Arc A380. The GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile, with rivals like the AMD Radeon HD 8850M and Intel Arc A310 within 1%.

The Verdict

Choose the Quadro P2200 if your workload involves legacy DirectX APIs, compute tasks, or multi-display professional setups. It wins 7 of 9 head-to-head tests, leads in Passmark G3D by 18.8%, and offers 5 GB of GDDR5X with 200.2 GB/s of bandwidth. It is also the smaller card at 201 mm and single-slot, which helps in dense workstation builds. Its nearest rivals in the database are within 1.5%, so it is competitive in its class, but it clearly outperforms the GTX 1650 in most recorded benchmarks.

Choose the GTX 1650 if your priority is modern API performance, specifically Vulkan or DirectX 12. It wins Geekbench Vulkan by 5.1% and Passmark DirectX 12 by 5.7%, and its FP16 throughput is vastly superior at 5.967 TFLOPS versus 59.72 GFLOPS. It also has a launch MSRP of 149 USD, though this analysis does not weigh pricing. The GTX 1650 is the better option for users targeting current-generation gaming APIs or FP16 workloads.

For everything else, the P2200 is the stronger card. The data is unambiguous: higher average benchmark score (8686 vs 7472), higher percentile (44 vs 40), and wins across the majority of test categories. The GTX 1650 is not a bad card, but it only wins where the workload matches its architectural strengths.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Turing |

| Process node | 16 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 4,400 million | 4,700 million |

| Die size | 200 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor density | 22.0M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 1485 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1493 MHz | 1665 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1251 MHz, 10 Gbps effective | 2001 MHz, 8 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 5 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus | 160 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 200.2 GB/s | 128.1 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1280 | 896 |

| TMUs | 80 | 56 |

| ROPs | 40 | 32 |

| Pixel rate | 59.72 GPixel/s | 53.28 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 119.4 GTexel/s | 93.24 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.822 TFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 59.72 GFLOPS (1:64) | 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 75 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 250 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 201 mm (7.9 inches) | 229 mm (9 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | N/A | 35 mm (1.4 inches) |

| Release date | 2019-06-09 | 2019-04-22 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 10 |

| Successor | Quadro Volta | GeForce 20 |