NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs AMD Radeon R9 M390X
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER und AMD Radeon R9 M390X Videokarten für alle bekannten Merkmale in den folgenden Kategorien: Essenzielles, Technische Info, Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse, Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen, API-Unterstützung, Speicher, Technologien. Benchmark-Videokarten Leistungsanalyse: 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.
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 4 Jahr(e) 6 Monat(e) später
- 2.1x mehr Kerntaktfrequenz: 1530 MHz vs 723 MHz
- 1491.2x mehr Texturfüllrate: 138.0 GTexel/s vs 92.54 GTexel / s
- Ein neuerer Herstellungsprozess ermöglicht eine leistungsfähigere, aber dennoch kühlere Grafikkarte: 12 nm vs 28 nm
- 2.8x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 10144 vs 3597
- Etwa 73% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 754 vs 435
- 2.5x bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 55368 vs 22044
- 2.8x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 178.926 vs 64.199
- Etwa 51% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1940.024 vs 1284.053
- Etwa 90% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 11.167 vs 5.881
- Etwa 31% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 102.69 vs 78.169
- 2.6x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 802.026 vs 312.822
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 13569 vs 6508
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 13569 vs 6508
Spezifikationen | |
Startdatum | 22 Nov 2019 vs 5 May 2015 |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 1530 MHz vs 723 MHz |
Texturfüllrate | 138.0 GTexel/s vs 92.54 GTexel / s |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 12 nm vs 28 nm |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 10144 vs 3597 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 754 vs 435 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 55368 vs 22044 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 178.926 vs 64.199 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1940.024 vs 1284.053 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.167 vs 5.881 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 102.69 vs 78.169 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 802.026 vs 312.822 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13569 vs 6508 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13569 vs 6508 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der AMD Radeon R9 M390X
- Etwa 60% höhere Leitungssysteme: 2048 vs 1280
- Etwa 33% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 75 Watt vs 100 Watt
- 2.3x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8593 vs 3715
- 7.4x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 24690 vs 3357
- 2.3x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8593 vs 3715
- 7.4x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 24690 vs 3357
Spezifikationen | |
Leitungssysteme | 2048 vs 1280 |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 100 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8593 vs 3715 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 24690 vs 3357 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8593 vs 3715 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 24690 vs 3357 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M390X
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) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | AMD Radeon R9 M390X |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 10144 | 3597 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 754 | 435 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 55368 | 22044 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 178.926 | 64.199 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1940.024 | 1284.053 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.167 | 5.881 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 102.69 | 78.169 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 802.026 | 312.822 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13569 | 6508 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 8593 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 24690 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13569 | 6508 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 8593 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 24690 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4673 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | AMD Radeon R9 M390X | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Turing | GCN 3.0 |
Codename | TU116 | Amethyst |
Startdatum | 22 Nov 2019 | 5 May 2015 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 267 | 303 |
Typ | Desktop | Desktop |
Design | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | |
Technische Info |
||
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1725 MHz | |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 1530 MHz | 723 MHz |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 12 nm | 28 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 | |
Leitungssysteme | 1280 | 2048 |
Pixel fill rate | 55.20 GPixel/s | |
Texturfüllrate | 138.0 GTexel/s | 92.54 GTexel / s |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 6600 million | 5,000 million |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 2,961 gflops | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Display-Anschlüsse | 1xDVI, 1xHDMI, 1xDisplayPort | No outputs |
DisplayPort-Unterstützung | ||
HDMI | ||
Eyefinity | ||
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Länge | 9 inches (229 mm) | |
Empfohlene Systemleistung (PSU) | 350 Watt | |
Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | 1x 6-pin | None |
Breite | Dual-slot | |
Busunterstützung | PCIe 3.0 | |
Laptop-Größe | large | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | Not Listed |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
Shader Model | 6.4 | |
Vulkan | ||
Mantle | ||
Speicher |
||
Maximale RAM-Belastung | 4 GB | 4 GB |
Speicherbandbreite | 192 GB/s | 160.0 GB / s |
Breite des Speicherbusses | 128 bit | 256 bit |
Speichertyp | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | |
Technologien |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Umschaltbare Grafiken | ||
ZeroCore |