NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 2 month(s) later
- Around 60% higher pipelines: 384 vs 240
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
- 4.9x lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 219 Watt
- Around 14% higher maximum memory size: 1 GB vs 896 MB
- Around 59% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1134 MHz
- 3.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 235 vs 67
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 22 March 2012 vs 15 January 2009 |
Pipelines | 384 vs 240 |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt vs 219 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 1 GB vs 896 MB |
Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 1134 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 235 vs 67 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
- Around 3% better floating-point performance: 673.9 gflops vs 652.8 gflops
- Around 15% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1385 vs 1202
- 6.1x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 23256 vs 3796
- Around 67% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3195 vs 1913
- Around 67% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3195 vs 1913
Specifications (specs) | |
Floating-point performance | 673.9 gflops vs 652.8 gflops |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1385 vs 1202 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 23256 vs 3796 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3195 vs 1913 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3195 vs 1913 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1202 | 1385 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 235 | 67 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3796 | 23256 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 9.947 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 340.824 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.982 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 18.773 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 23.111 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2283 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3299 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1913 | 3195 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2283 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3299 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1913 | 3195 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 414 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 275 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Kepler | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | GK107 | GT200B |
Launch date | 22 March 2012 | 15 January 2009 |
Place in performance rating | 1215 | 1232 |
Type | Laptop | Desktop |
Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | |
Price now | $119.99 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 13.43 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | |
CUDA cores | 384 | 240 |
Floating-point performance | 652.8 gflops | 673.9 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 240 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 219 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,270 million | 1,400 million |
Core clock speed | 1404 MHz | |
Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Texture fill rate | 50.6 billion / sec | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | Two Dual Link DVI, 2x DVI |
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Laptop size | medium sized | |
Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | |
SLI options | 2-way3-way | |
Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 API | 10.0 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.0 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 896 MB |
Memory bus width | 128bit | 448 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1134 MHz |
Memory type | DDR3\GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Memory bandwidth | 127.0 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
DirectCompute | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
Optimus | ||
SLI |