NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and NVIDIA Quadro P4000 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. 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 Ti
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 12% higher core clock speed: 1350 MHz vs 1202 MHz
- 573.2x more texture fill rate: 95.04 GTexel/s vs 165.8 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 16 nm
- 2x lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 100 Watt
- Around 16% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1844.67 vs 1590.392
- 2.5x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 115.919 vs 45.977
- 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8926 vs 3714
- 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 8062 vs 3358
- 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8926 vs 3714
- 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 8062 vs 3358
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 2 Apr 2020 vs 6 February 2017 |
| Core clock speed | 1350 MHz vs 1202 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1485 MHz vs 1480 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 95.04 GTexel/s vs 165.8 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm vs 16 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt vs 100 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1844.67 vs 1590.392 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 115.919 vs 45.977 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8926 vs 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 8062 vs 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8926 vs 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 8062 vs 3358 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro P4000
- Around 75% higher pipelines: 1792 vs 1024
- 2x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 4 GB
- 5.1x more memory clock speed: 7604 MHz vs 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective)
- Around 54% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 11653 vs 7568
- 2.1x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 827 vs 388
- Around 1% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 42289 vs 41946
- Around 6% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 11.365 vs 10.683
- Around 17% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 751.626 vs 644.054
- Around 25% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 15267 vs 12180
- Around 25% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 15267 vs 12180
- Around 34% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 4904 vs 3666
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Pipelines | 1792 vs 1024 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 4 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 7604 MHz vs 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective) |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 11653 vs 7568 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 827 vs 388 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 42289 vs 41946 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 152.325 vs 151.899 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.365 vs 10.683 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 751.626 vs 644.054 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 15267 vs 12180 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 15267 vs 12180 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4904 vs 3666 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro P4000
| 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 |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 7568 | 11653 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 388 | 827 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41946 | 42289 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 151.899 | 152.325 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1844.67 | 1590.392 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 10.683 | 11.365 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 115.919 | 45.977 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 644.054 | 751.626 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12180 | 15267 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8926 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 8062 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12180 | 15267 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8926 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 8062 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3666 | 4904 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
| Code name | TU117 | GP104 |
| Launch date | 2 Apr 2020 | 6 February 2017 |
| Place in performance rating | 273 | 275 |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $815 | |
| Price now | $799.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 17.17 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1485 MHz | 1480 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1350 MHz | 1202 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 16 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 95.04 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 6.083 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.041 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 1024 | 1792 |
| Pixel fill rate | 47.52 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 95.04 GTexel/s | 165.8 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Transistor count | 4700 million | 7,200 million |
| Floating-point performance | 5,304 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort |
| Display Port | 1.4 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 241 mm | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 192 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective) | 7604 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Stereo | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti with others
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs
AMDRadeon R9 M485X
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1060 Mobile 6 GB
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs
NVIDIAQuadro P4000
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs
AMDRadeon RX 560X Mobile
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs
AMDRadeon Pro 5600M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs
AMDRadeon Pro W6600M
