NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs AMD Radeon R9 M470
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and AMD Radeon R9 M470 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 GTX 1650 Ti
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- Around 50% higher core clock speed: 1350 MHz vs 900 MHz
- Around 49% higher boost clock speed: 1485 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- 1980x more texture fill rate: 95.04 GTexel/s vs 48 GTexel / s
- Around 33% higher pipelines: 1024 vs 768
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
- 3.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 7567 vs 2331
- Around 27% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 389 vs 307
- 4.9x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8926 vs 1804
- 4.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 8062 vs 1674
- 4.9x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8926 vs 1804
- 4.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 8062 vs 1674
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 2 Apr 2020 vs 15 May 2016 |
Core clock speed | 1350 MHz vs 900 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1485 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 95.04 GTexel/s vs 48 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1024 vs 768 |
Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm vs 28 nm |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 7567 vs 2331 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 389 vs 307 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8926 vs 1804 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 8062 vs 1674 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8926 vs 1804 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 8062 vs 1674 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M470
- 4x more memory clock speed: 6000 MHz vs 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective)
- Around 14% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 47924 vs 41946
Specifications (specs) | |
Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz vs 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective) |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 47924 vs 41946 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M470
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 GTX 1650 Ti | AMD Radeon R9 M470 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 7567 | 2331 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 389 | 307 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 41946 | 47924 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 151.899 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1844.67 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 10.683 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 115.919 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 644.054 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12180 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8926 | 1804 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 8062 | 1674 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12180 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8926 | 1804 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 8062 | 1674 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3667 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | AMD Radeon R9 M470 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Turing | GCN 2.0 |
Code name | TU117 | Strato |
Launch date | 2 Apr 2020 | 15 May 2016 |
Place in performance rating | 273 | 769 |
Type | Laptop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1485 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Core clock speed | 1350 MHz | 900 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 95.04 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 6.083 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.041 TFLOPS | |
Pipelines | 1024 | 768 |
Pixel fill rate | 47.52 GPixel/s | |
Texture fill rate | 95.04 GTexel/s | 48 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | |
Transistor count | 4700 million | 2,080 million |
Floating-point performance | 1,536 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (12_0) |
OpenCL | 1.2 | |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Shader Model | 6.5 | |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 96 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective) | 6000 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
DirectCompute 5.0 |