NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 4700 X2
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q and NVIDIA Quadro FX 4700 X2 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
- Videocard is newer: launch date 11 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- Around 70% higher core clock speed: 1020 MHz vs 600 MHz
- 292.4x more texture fill rate: 69.72 GTexel/s vs 2x 38.4 GTexel / s billion / sec
- 3.5x more pipelines: 896 vs 2x 128
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 65 nm
- 6.5x lower typical power consumption: 35 Watt vs 226 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2x 1 GB
- Around 25% higher memory clock speed: 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) vs 1600 MHz
- 9.1x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6177 vs 676
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 23 April 2019 vs 18 April 2008 |
| Core clock speed | 1020 MHz vs 600 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 69.72 GTexel/s vs 2x 38.4 GTexel / s billion / sec |
| Pipelines | 896 vs 2x 128 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt vs 226 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2x 1 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) vs 1600 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6177 vs 676 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4700 X2
- Around 56% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 509 vs 326
- Around 25% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 4196 vs 3352
- Around 25% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 4196 vs 3352
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 509 vs 326 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 4196 vs 3352 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 4196 vs 3352 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 4700 X2
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q | NVIDIA Quadro FX 4700 X2 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6177 | 676 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 326 | 509 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 36477 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 129.441 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1047.138 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.882 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 78.563 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 346.498 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8824 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3707 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 4196 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8824 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3707 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 4196 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2962 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q | NVIDIA Quadro FX 4700 X2 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Turing | Tesla |
| Code name | TU117 | G92 |
| Launch date | 23 April 2019 | 18 April 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 470 | 472 |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,999 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1245 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1020 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 65 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 69.72 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 4.462 TFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 2.231 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 896 | 2x 128 |
| Pixel fill rate | 39.84 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 69.72 GTexel/s | 2x 38.4 GTexel / s billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt | 226 Watt |
| Transistor count | 4700 million | 754 million |
| Floating-point performance | 2x 384.0 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Length | 267 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 10.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2x 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 2x 51.2 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 2x 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) | 1600 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q with others
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs
ATIFireGL V7350
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 4700 X2
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9300 SE
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon R9 M395X
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs
IntelUHD Graphics P750
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAGeForce MX550
