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

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti 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 Ti

• Videocard is newer: launch date 10 month(s) later
• 2.3x more core clock speed: 1350 MHz vs 600 MHz
• Around 22% higher boost clock speed: 1485 MHz vs 1215 MHz
• Around 20% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 60 Watt
• Around 13% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 389 vs 343
• Around 23% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 115.919 vs 94.532
• Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 12180 vs 10140
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8926 vs 3706
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 8062 vs 3351
• Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 12180 vs 10140
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8926 vs 3706
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 8062 vs 3351

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q

• Around 84% higher texture fill rate: 175.0 GTexel/s vs 95.04 GTexel/s
• 2.3x more pipelines: 2304 vs 1024
• Around 50% higher maximum memory size: 6 GB vs 4 GB
• Around 11% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 8366 vs 7567
• Around 63% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 68305 vs 41946
• Around 45% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 220.867 vs 151.899
• Around 11% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2046.214 vs 1844.67
• Around 50% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 16.026 vs 10.683

Compare benchmarks

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

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	7567 8366
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	389 343
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	41946 68305
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	151.899 220.867
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1844.67 2046.214
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10.683 16.026
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	115.919 94.532
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	644.054 645.647
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	12180 10140
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8926 3706
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8062 3351
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	12180 10140
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8926 3706
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8062 3351

Compare specifications (specs)