NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear, though not universal, hierarchy between these two NVIDIA offerings. The Quadro P5000 claims victory in 9 of the 10 head-to-head tests, with its most dramatic result coming in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. There, the Quadro scores 1330 against the GTX 1650’s 305, a 336.1% advantage. This is the single largest margin in the entire comparison and speaks to the Quadro’s dominance in modern, low-level graphics workloads.

The Quadro’s lead extends across the Passmark suite. In DirectX 10, it posts 77 versus 39, a 97.4% margin. DirectX 11 shows 102 against 58, a 75.9% lead. Even in legacy DirectX 9, the Quadro wins 170 to 124, a 37.1% advantage. The gap narrows considerably in DirectX 12, where the Quadro scores 44 versus 35, a 25.7% edge. This pattern suggests that while the P5000 is stronger across the board, its advantage compresses in more modern API paths.

Compute performance heavily favors the Quadro. In Passmark GPU Compute, it scores 6508 against 3048, a 113.5% lead. Geekbench OpenCL shows a similar story: 52509 for the Quadro versus 29629 for the GTX 1650, a 77.2% margin. The Quadro’s raw FP32 throughput of 8.873 TFLOPS, nearly triple the GTX 1650’s 2.984 TFLOPS, explains this decisive compute advantage.

The one bright spot for the GTX 1650 is Vulkan. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 33042 against the Quadro’s 6342, an 80.8% win. This is a stark reversal and the GTX 1650’s only head-to-head victory. The Turing architecture’s asynchronous compute and newer scheduling likely contribute to this result, though the data alone cannot confirm the cause.

Rasterization rates reinforce the Quadro’s overall lead. Passmark G3D shows 12634 for the P5000 versus 7880 for the GTX 1650, a 60.3% margin. Even the 2D test favors the Quadro, 674 to 561, a 20.1% difference. The average benchmark scores summarize the situation: the Quadro P5000 averages 8039 across all tests, while the GTX 1650 averages 7472.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 wins 9 out of 10 head-to-head tests. The only exception is Geekbench Vulkan, where the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 wins.

Q: How large is the Quadro P5000’s lead in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test?

A: The Quadro P5000 scores 1330, while the GTX 1650 scores 305. This represents a 336.1% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: Is there any workload where the GTX 1650 outperforms the Quadro P5000?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan. The GTX 1650 scores 33042 against the Quadro’s 6342, a difference of 80.8% in favor of the GTX 1650.

Q: How do the two cards compare in compute performance?

A: The Quadro P5000 leads decisively. In Passmark GPU Compute, it scores 6508 versus 3048, a 113.5% lead. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 52509 versus 29629, a 77.2% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro P5000 has an average benchmark score of 8039, while the GTX 1650 averages 7472. The Quadro holds a meaningful overall lead, though the gap is not as extreme as in individual compute-heavy tests.

Q: How do these cards rank among all GPUs based on the benchmark data?

A: The Quadro P5000 sits at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1650 sits at the 40th percentile. Despite the Quadro’s large margins in most tests, both cards rank near the middle of the overall distribution.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P5000 is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads. Its 113.5% lead in Passmark GPU Compute and 77.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL make it the superior option for any task that relies on raw mathematical throughput. Its FP32 output of 8.873 TFLOPS dwarfs the GTX 1650’s 2.984 TFLOPS, and its texture rate of 277.3 GTexel/s is nearly triple the GTX 1650’s 93.24 GTexel/s. For users running simulation, rendering, or data-parallel applications, the Quadro’s compute dominance is the deciding factor.

The GTX 1650 wins in Vulkan, and this is not a marginal victory. Its 33042 score against 6342 represents an 80.8% advantage. For users whose software stack is built around Vulkan, the GTX 1650 is unexpectedly the faster card. This single result, however, does not translate into wins in any other test category.

DirectX performance splits by version. The Quadro leads in DirectX 9 (37.1%), DirectX 10 (97.4%), DirectX 11 (75.9%), and DirectX 12 (25.7%). The margins shrink as the API becomes more modern, but the Quadro remains ahead in every DirectX test. The GTX 1650’s lack of a DirectX win anywhere is notable, especially given that both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1).

The 2D test also favors the Quadro, 674 to 561, a 20.1% margin. This suggests better desktop compositing and UI rendering performance, though the practical difference is far less impactful than the compute or 3D gaps.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially in memory configuration. The Quadro P5000 features 16 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 128.1 GB/s. The Quadro offers four times the capacity and more than double the bandwidth.

Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The Quadro has a higher base clock at 1607 MHz versus 1485 MHz, and a higher boost clock at 1733 MHz versus 1665 MHz. However, memory clocks differ: the Quadro runs at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective), while the GTX 1650 runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The GTX 1650’s memory clock is numerically higher, but its narrower bus limits overall bandwidth.

Power and cooling requirements diverge sharply. The Quadro P5000 has a TDP of 180 W and requires a 450 W power supply, along with a single 8-pin power connector. The GTX 1650 has a TDP of 75 W, needs only a 250 W power supply, and draws power entirely from the PCIe slot with no additional connectors. Physical dimensions also differ: the Quadro is 267 mm long, while the GTX 1650 is 229 mm long. Both are dual-slot cards with 111 mm height, but the GTX 1650 has a listed width of 35 mm while the Quadro’s width is not specified.

Display outputs vary. The Quadro offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The GTX 1650 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro’s four DisplayPort outputs make it more suitable for multi-monitor professional setups.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and process nodes. The Quadro P5000 uses the GP104 chip built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip based on the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. The process shrink gives the GTX 1650 a slightly higher transistor density: 23.5M / mm² versus 22.9M / mm².

Chip size and transistor count tell a different story. The Quadro’s GP104 die measures 314 mm² and contains 7,200 million transistors. The GTX 1650’s TU117 die is 200 mm² with 4,700 million transistors. The Quadro’s larger die and higher transistor count enable its significantly greater computational resources.

Compute unit counts differ enormously. The Quadro P5000 has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro has nearly three times the shading units and more than double the TMUs and ROPs. This explains the 8.873 TFLOPS versus 2.984 TFLOPS FP32 gap.

The FP16 capabilities reveal a fundamental architectural difference. The Quadro P5000 delivers 138.6 GFLOPS FP16, a 1:64 ratio relative to its FP32 output. The GTX 1650 delivers 5.967 TFLOPS FP16, a 2:1 ratio. This means the GTX 1650 is actually far faster in FP16 workloads, despite being slower in FP32, though the benchmark data provided does not include a direct FP16 test.

Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate or omit those features in their respective architectures. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The release timeline shows the Quadro P5000 launched on 2016-09-30, while the GTX 1650 arrived on 2019-04-22. The Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta. The GTX 1650’s predecessor is GeForce 10 and its successor is GeForce 20. The Quadro P5000 had a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD. The GTX 1650 had a launch MSRP of 149 USD.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward split decision. For users who need raw compute throughput, extensive memory capacity, or maximum performance in DirectX-based workloads, the Quadro P5000 is the clear choice. Its 77.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 113.5% lead in Passmark GPU Compute make it the only option for serious computational tasks. Its 16 GB memory capacity and 288.5 GB/s bandwidth provide headroom that the GTX 1650 cannot approach. The Quadro also wins every DirectX test, from legacy 9 through modern 12.

The GTX 1650 is not without merit. Its 80.8% victory in Geekbench Vulkan is a significant result. Furthermore, its FAR lower power draw (75 W versus 180 W), smaller physical footprint (229 mm versus 267 mm), and lack of external power connectors make it far easier to integrate into compact or power-constrained systems. Its suggested power supply of 250 W versus 450 W for the Quadro further lowers the barrier to installation.

The overall percentile rankings are nearly identical: 41st for the Quadro, 40th for the GTX 1650. This indicates that while the Quadro wins most direct comparisons, both cards occupy a similar tier in the broader GPU landscape. The Quadro’s average benchmark score of 8039 versus 7472 for the GTX 1650 is a 7.6% overall advantage, far smaller than individual test margins might suggest.

Choosing between them depends entirely on workload. The Quadro P5000 is the professional workhorse, built for tasks that demand sustained compute performance and large memory pools. The GTX 1650 is the efficient alternative, offering competitive Vulkan performance and easy installation in a fraction of the power envelope. Neither card is objectively superior across all metrics; the Quadro wins on raw performance and capacity, while the GTX 1650 wins on efficiency and Vulkan-specific speed. Users with compute-heavy, DirectX-oriented, or memory-intensive needs should select the Quadro P5000. Users prioritizing Vulkan performance, low power consumption, or simple system integration should select the GTX 1650.