NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 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
- 4.5x lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 204 Watt
- Around 45% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1242 MHz
- 3.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 239 vs 68
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 22 March 2012 vs 23 December 2008 |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 240 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt vs 204 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 1242 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 239 vs 68 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285
- Around 9% better floating-point performance: 708.5 gflops vs 652.8 gflops
- Around 25% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1501 vs 1202
- 5.8x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 22124 vs 3802
- Around 75% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3347 vs 1913
- Around 75% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3347 vs 1913
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Floating-point performance | 708.5 gflops vs 652.8 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1501 vs 1202 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22124 vs 3802 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3347 vs 1913 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3347 vs 1913 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285
| 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 285 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1202 | 1501 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 239 | 68 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3802 | 22124 |
| 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 | 3347 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2283 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3299 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1913 | 3347 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 414 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | GK107 | GT200B |
| Launch date | 22 March 2012 | 23 December 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 1188 | 1191 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $359 | |
| Price now | $179.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 9.17 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | |
| CUDA cores | 384 | 240 |
| Floating-point performance | 652.8 gflops | 708.5 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 240 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 204 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,270 million | 1,400 million |
| Core clock speed | 1476 MHz | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
| Texture fill rate | 51.8 billion / sec | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, HDTVTwo Dual Link 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 | |
| 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 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1242 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3\GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
| Memory bandwidth | 159.0 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | 128bit | |
| SLI | ||

