NVIDIA GeForce GT 550M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 550M and NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 550M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- Around 32% higher core clock speed: 740 MHz vs 561 MHz
- Around 33% higher pipelines: 96 vs 72
- Around 75% better floating-point performance: 284.16 gflops vs 162 gflops
- Around 29% lower typical power consumption: 35 Watt vs 45 Watt
- Around 23% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 573 vs 467
- Around 70% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 119 vs 70
- Around 93% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1790 vs 926
- Around 93% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1790 vs 926
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 5 January 2011 vs 15 June 2009 |
Core clock speed | 740 MHz vs 561 MHz |
Pipelines | 96 vs 72 |
Floating-point performance | 284.16 gflops vs 162 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt vs 45 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 573 vs 467 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 119 vs 70 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1790 vs 926 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1790 vs 926 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M
- Around 14% higher texture fill rate: 13.46 GTexel / s vs 11.8 billion / sec
- 2.4x more memory clock speed: 2200 MHz vs 900 MHz
- 3x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 7043 vs 2351
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1450 vs 1352
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1450 vs 1352
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 13.46 GTexel / s vs 11.8 billion / sec |
Memory clock speed | 2200 MHz vs 900 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 7043 vs 2351 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1450 vs 1352 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1450 vs 1352 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 550M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 550M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 573 | 467 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 119 | 70 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 2351 | 7043 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 4.651 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 213.211 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.624 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 10.521 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 23.978 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1056 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1790 | 926 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1352 | 1450 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1056 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1790 | 926 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1352 | 1450 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 550M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 1800M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Fermi | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | GF108 | GT215 |
Launch date | 5 January 2011 | 15 June 2009 |
Place in performance rating | 1508 | 1511 |
Type | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 740 MHz | 561 MHz |
CUDA cores | 96 | |
Floating-point performance | 284.16 gflops | 162 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 96 | 72 |
Texture fill rate | 11.8 billion / sec | 13.46 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt | 45 Watt |
Transistor count | 585 million | 727 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
Laptop size | large | medium sized |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 API | 10.1 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB / s | 35.2 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2200 MHz |
Memory type | DDR3 | DDR3, GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
CUDA | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
Optimus |