NVIDIA Quadro T1000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA Quadro T1000 und NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Videokarten für alle bekannten Merkmale in den folgenden Kategorien: Essenzielles, Technische Info, Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse, Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen, API-Unterstützung, Speicher. Benchmark-Videokarten Leistungsanalyse: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/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), 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA Quadro T1000
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3718 vs 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 vs 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3718 vs 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 vs 3358 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
- Etwa 6% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:1485 MHz vs 1395 MHz
- Etwa 14% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1665 MHz vs 1455 MHz
- Etwa 21% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 7881 vs 6494
- Etwa 40% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 564 vs 404
- Etwa 19% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 39165 vs 32981
- Etwa 53% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 134.765 vs 87.83
- Etwa 22% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10959 vs 9009
- Etwa 22% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10959 vs 9009
| Spezifikationen | |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1485 MHz vs 1395 MHz |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1665 MHz vs 1455 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 7881 vs 6494 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 564 vs 404 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 39165 vs 32981 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 134.765 vs 87.83 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10959 vs 9009 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10959 vs 9009 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro T1000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/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 Quadro T1000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6494 | 7881 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 404 | 564 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32981 | 39165 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 87.83 | 134.765 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9009 | 10959 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3718 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9009 | 10959 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3718 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 | 3358 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1316.075 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.799 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 94.915 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 573.418 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 305 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| NVIDIA Quadro T1000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Turing | Turing |
| Codename | TU117 | TU107 |
| Startdatum | 27 May 2019 | 30 April 2019 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 400 | 376 |
| Typ | Mobile Workstation | Desktop |
| Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $179 | |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1455 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1395 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 69.84 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 4.470 TFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 2.235 TFLOPS | |
| Leitungssysteme | 768 | |
| Pixel-Füllrate | 46.56 GPixel/s | |
| Texturfüllrate | 69.84 GTexel/s | |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 50 Watt | |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 4700 million | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| DisplayPort Anzahl | 1 | |
| DisplayPort-Unterstützung | ||
| HDMI | ||
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | None |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 4 GB | |
| Speicherbandbreite | 128 GB/s | |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 128 bit | |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 8000 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Speichertyp | GDDR5 | |
Navigation
Einen Grafikprozessor auswählen
Grafikkarten vergleichen
Vergleiche NVIDIA Quadro T1000 mit anderen
NVIDIAQuadro T1000 vs
ATIRadeon X800 GT
NVIDIAQuadro T1000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTS 150M
NVIDIAQuadro T1000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7730
NVIDIAQuadro T1000 vs
AMDRadeon R9 M365X
NVIDIAQuadro T1000 vs
AMDRadeon RX 560X
NVIDIAQuadro T1000 vs
AMDRadeon Pro W5500M
