NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M and NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800 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) 4 month(s) later
- Around 60% higher pipelines: 384 vs 240
- Around 5% better floating-point performance: 652.8 gflops vs 622.1 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
- 4.2x lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 189 Watt
- Around 13% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1600 MHz
- 3x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 239 vs 80
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 22 March 2012 vs 11 November 2008 |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 240 |
| Floating-point performance | 652.8 gflops vs 622.1 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt vs 189 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 239 vs 80 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 1% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1210 vs 1202
- 4.8x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 18229 vs 3802
- Around 73% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3319 vs 1913
- Around 73% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3319 vs 1913
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1210 vs 1202 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 18229 vs 3802 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3319 vs 1913 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3319 vs 1913 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800
| 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 Quadro FX 5800 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1202 | 1210 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 239 | 80 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3802 | 18229 |
| 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 | 3319 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2283 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3299 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1913 | 3319 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 414 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | GK107 | GT200B |
| Launch date | 22 March 2012 | 11 November 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 1188 | 1240 |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,499 | |
| Price now | $178.89 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 8.02 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | |
| CUDA cores | 384 | |
| Floating-point performance | 652.8 gflops | 622.1 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 240 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 189 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,270 million | 1,400 million |
| Core clock speed | 610 MHz | |
| Texture fill rate | 48.8 GTexel / s | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | |
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 | |
| Length | 267 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 API | 10.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3\GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with others
NVIDIAGeForce GT 650M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 285
NVIDIAGeForce GT 650M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 5870
NVIDIAGeForce GT 650M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 3400
NVIDIAGeForce GT 650M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 645M
NVIDIAGeForce GT 650M vs
AMDRadeon R6 M255DX
NVIDIAGeForce GT 650M vs
AMDFirePro W2100
