NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro P3200 Max-Q
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and NVIDIA Quadro P3200 Max-Q 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 SUPER
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 9 month(s) later
- Around 34% higher core clock speed: 1530 MHz vs 1139 MHz
- Around 23% higher boost clock speed: 1725 MHz vs 1404 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 16 nm
- Around 10% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 10144 vs 9219
- Around 42% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 753 vs 530
- Around 64% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 55409 vs 33770
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 13569 vs 13448
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 13569 vs 13448
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 22 Nov 2019 vs 21 February 2018 |
| Core clock speed | 1530 MHz vs 1139 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1725 MHz vs 1404 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm vs 16 nm |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 10144 vs 9219 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 753 vs 530 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 55409 vs 33770 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13569 vs 13448 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13569 vs 13448 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro P3200 Max-Q
- Around 33% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 100 Watt
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 100 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 vs 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3357 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 vs 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3357 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro P3200 Max-Q
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | NVIDIA Quadro P3200 Max-Q |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 10144 | 9219 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 753 | 530 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 55409 | 33770 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 178.926 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1940.024 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.167 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 102.69 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 802.026 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13569 | 13448 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13569 | 13448 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4670 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | NVIDIA Quadro P3200 Max-Q | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
| Code name | TU116 | GP104 |
| Launch date | 22 Nov 2019 | 21 February 2018 |
| Place in performance rating | 269 | 263 |
| Type | Desktop | Workstation |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1725 MHz | 1404 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1530 MHz | 1139 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 16 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 138.0 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 4.416 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 1280 | |
| Pixel fill rate | 55.20 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 138.0 GTexel/s | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Transistor count | 6600 million | 7,200 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 1xDVI, 1xHDMI, 1xDisplayPort | No outputs |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| HDMI | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 9 inches (229 mm) | |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 350 Watt | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
| Width | Dual-slot | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | |
| Memory clock speed | 7012 MHz | |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER with others
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
AMDRadeon R9 M485X
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
AMDRadeon Pro 5600M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 3050 Ti
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
AMDRadeon Pro W6600M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
NVIDIARTX A2000 Mobile
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
AMDRadeon RX 6500M
