NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q 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: GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), Geekbench - OpenCL, PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q
- Etwa 5% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 41333 vs 39422
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41333 vs 39422 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
- Etwa 24% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:1485 MHz vs 1200 MHz
- Etwa 3% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1665 MHz vs 1620 MHz
- 4x mehr Speichertaktfrequenz: 8000 MHz vs 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective)
- Etwa 43% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10959 vs 7682
- Etwa 43% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10959 vs 7682
- Etwa 34% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 577 vs 430
- Etwa 14% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 7876 vs 6923
| Spezifikationen | |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1485 MHz vs 1200 MHz |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1665 MHz vs 1620 MHz |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 8000 MHz vs 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10959 vs 7682 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10959 vs 7682 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 3703 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 3703 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3356 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 577 vs 430 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 7876 vs 6923 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7682 | 10959 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7682 | 10959 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3703 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3703 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3358 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41333 | 39422 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 430 | 577 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6923 | 7876 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 134.955 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1294.279 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.756 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 91.78 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 569.916 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3597 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Turing | Turing |
| Codename | TU117 | TU107 |
| Startdatum | 27 May 2019 | 30 April 2019 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 381 | 359 |
| Typ | Laptop | Desktop |
| Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $179 | |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1620 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1200 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 103.7 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 6.636 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.318 TFLOPS | |
| Leitungssysteme | 1024 | |
| Pixel fill rate | 51.84 GPixel/s | |
| Texturfüllrate | 103.7 GTexel/s | |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 40 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 |
| Breite | IGP | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 4 GB | |
| Speicherbandbreite | 128.0 GB/s | |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 128 bit | |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) | 8000 MHz |
| Speichertyp | GDDR5 | |
Navigation
Einen Grafikprozessor auswählen
Grafikkarten vergleichen
Vergleiche NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q mit anderen
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
ATIRadeon X1800 GTO²
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAGeForce 7950 GX2
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAQuadro P3000
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon RX 560X
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon RX 5300M
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
IntelArc A370M
