AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs NVIDIA GeForce 9650M GS
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Pro 575 and NVIDIA GeForce 9650M GS 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: 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), PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon Pro 575
- Videocard is newer: launch date 9 year(s) 2 month(s) later
- 14.1x more texture fill rate: 140.8 GTexel / s vs 10 GTexel / s
- 64x more pipelines: 2048 vs 32
- 56.3x better floating-point performance: 4,506 gflops vs 80 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 80 nm
- 8x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 512 MB
- 8.5x more memory clock speed: 6800 MHz vs 800 MHz
Launch date | 5 June 2017 vs 13 March 2008 |
Texture fill rate | 140.8 GTexel / s vs 10 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 2048 vs 32 |
Floating-point performance | 4,506 gflops vs 80 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 80 nm |
Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 512 MB |
Memory clock speed | 6800 MHz vs 800 MHz |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9650M GS
- Around 14% higher core clock speed: 1250 MHz vs 1096 MHz
- 4.1x lower typical power consumption: 29 Watt vs 120 Watt
Core clock speed | 1250 MHz vs 1096 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 29 Watt vs 120 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 575
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9650M GS
Name | AMD Radeon Pro 575 | NVIDIA GeForce 9650M GS |
---|---|---|
Geekbench - OpenCL | 34778 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 86.154 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1090.128 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.88 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 98.349 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 539.686 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9613 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2814 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9613 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2814 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 270 | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 328 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon Pro 575 | NVIDIA GeForce 9650M GS | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Tesla |
Code name | Polaris 20 | G84 |
Launch date | 5 June 2017 | 13 March 2008 |
Place in performance rating | 490 | 493 |
Type | Workstation | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 1096 MHz | 1250 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 4,506 gflops | 80 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 80 nm |
Pipelines | 2048 | 32 |
Texture fill rate | 140.8 GTexel / s | 10 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 120 Watt | 29 Watt |
Transistor count | 5,700 million | 289 million |
CUDA cores | 32 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 241 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 217.6 GB / s | 25.6 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 6800 MHz | 800 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR2?, GDDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 |