NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 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

• Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 9 month(s) later
• Around 42% higher core clock speed: 1485 MHz vs 1046 MHz
• Around 48% higher boost clock speed: 1665 MHz vs 1124 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 60% higher memory clock speed: 8000 MHz vs 5012 MHz
• 2.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 7881 vs 3572
• Around 3% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 564 vs 548
• 3.3x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 39165 vs 12020
• 3.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 134.765 vs 40.695
• 2.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1316.075 vs 588.094
• 2.7x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 8.799 vs 3.205
• 3.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 94.915 vs 30.455
• 3.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 573.418 vs 166.26
• 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10959 vs 4921
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 vs 1577
• 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 1671
• 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10959 vs 4921
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 vs 1577
• 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 1671

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2200

• 3.9x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1193 vs 305

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2200

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	7881 3572
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	564 548
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	39165 12020
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	134.765 40.695
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1316.075 588.094
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8.799 3.205
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	94.915 30.455
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	573.418 166.26
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10959 4921
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 1577
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 1671
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10959 4921
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3715 1577
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 1671
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	305 1193

Compare specifications (specs)