NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 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 5 month(s) later
• 2.6x more core clock speed: 1530 MHz vs 600 MHz
• Around 42% higher boost clock speed: 1725 MHz vs 1215 MHz
• Around 21% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 10143 vs 8366
• 2.2x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 752 vs 343
• Around 9% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 102.69 vs 94.532
• Around 24% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 802.026 vs 645.647
• Around 34% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 13569 vs 10140
• Around 34% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 13569 vs 10140

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q

• Around 27% higher texture fill rate: 175.0 GTexel/s vs 138.0 GTexel/s
• Around 80% higher pipelines: 2304 vs 1280
• Around 67% lower typical power consumption: 60 Watt vs 100 Watt
• Around 50% higher maximum memory size: 6 GB vs 4 GB
• Around 23% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 68305 vs 55386
• Around 23% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 220.867 vs 178.926
• Around 5% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2046.214 vs 1940.024
• Around 44% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 16.026 vs 11.167

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	10143 8366
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	752 343
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	55386 68305
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	178.926 220.867
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1940.024 2046.214
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	11.167 16.026
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	102.69 94.532
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	802.026 645.647
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	13569 10140
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 3706
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3357 3351
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	13569 10140
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 3706
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3357 3351

Compare specifications (specs)