NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 und NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M 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 RTX 2060
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 3 Jahr(e) 9 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 49% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:1365 MHz vs 914 MHz
- Etwa 49% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1680 MHz vs 1124 MHz
- 3x mehr Leitungssysteme: 1920 vs 640
- Ein neuerer Herstellungsprozess ermöglicht eine leistungsfähigere, aber dennoch kühlere Grafikkarte: 12 nm vs 28 nm
- Um etwa 50% höhere maximale Speichergröße: 6 GB vs 4 GB
- 5.6x mehr Speichertaktfrequenz: 14000 MHz vs 1000 or 2500 MHz
- 5.5x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 14119 vs 2577
- 3.4x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 746 vs 217
- 7.3x bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 71402 vs 9744
- 5.1x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 217.04 vs 42.396
- 8.3x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 3119.736 vs 373.644
- 8.5x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 21.707 vs 2.54
- 3.4x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 133.975 vs 39.412
- 8.2x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 1141.283 vs 139.158
- 4.8x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 20094 vs 4148
- 2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 7442 vs 3715
- 2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 6714 vs 3358
- 4.8x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 20094 vs 4148
- 2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 7442 vs 3715
- 2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 6714 vs 3358
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 7 January 2019 vs 13 March 2015 |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1365 MHz vs 914 MHz |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1680 MHz vs 1124 MHz |
| Leitungssysteme | 1920 vs 640 |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 12 nm vs 28 nm |
| Maximale Speichergröße | 6 GB vs 4 GB |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 14000 MHz vs 1000 or 2500 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 14119 vs 2577 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 746 vs 217 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 71402 vs 9744 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 217.04 vs 42.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3119.736 vs 373.644 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 21.707 vs 2.54 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 133.975 vs 39.412 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1141.283 vs 139.158 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 20094 vs 4148 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 7442 vs 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 6714 vs 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 20094 vs 4148 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 7442 vs 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 6714 vs 3358 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
- 2.1x geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 75 Watt vs 160 Watt
- 2.7x bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3350 vs 1242
| Spezifikationen | |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 160 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3350 vs 1242 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
| 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 RTX 2060 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 14119 | 2577 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 746 | 217 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 71402 | 9744 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 217.04 | 42.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 3119.736 | 373.644 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 21.707 | 2.54 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 133.975 | 39.412 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1141.283 | 139.158 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 20094 | 4148 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 7442 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 6714 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 20094 | 4148 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 7442 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 6714 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1242 | 3350 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Turing | Maxwell |
| Codename | TU106 | GM107 |
| Startdatum | 7 January 2019 | 13 March 2015 |
| Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $349 | |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 161 | 797 |
| Jetzt kaufen | $349.99 | |
| Typ | Desktop | Laptop |
| Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 62.74 | |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1680 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1365 MHz | 914 MHz |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Leitungssysteme | 1920 | 640 |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 160 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 10,800 million | 1,870 million |
| CUDA-Kerne | 640 | |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 1,439 gflops | |
| Texturfüllrate | 44.96 GTexel / s | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | No outputs |
| DisplayPort Anzahl | 2 | |
| DisplayPort-Unterstützung | ||
| HDMI | ||
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) Unterstützung | 1 | |
| VGA аnalog Display-Unterstützung | 1 | |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Länge | 229 mm | |
| Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | 1x 8-pin | |
| Busunterstützung | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Laptop-Größe | medium sized | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 14000 MHz | 1000 or 2500 MHz |
| Speichertyp | GDDR6 | DDR3 or GDDR5 |
| Speicherbandbreite | 32 or 80 GB / s | |
| Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | |
Technologien |
||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||

