NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 vs NVIDIA GeForce 205 OEM
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 and NVIDIA GeForce 205 OEM 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 670
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 5 month(s) later
- Around 66% higher core clock speed: 980 MHz vs 589 MHz
- 43.5x more texture fill rate: 102.5 billion / sec vs 2.356 GTexel / s
- 168x more pipelines: 1344 vs 8
- 109.6x better floating-point performance: 2,459.5 gflops vs 22.432 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 4x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 512 MB
- 42.4x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5345 vs 126
- Around 74% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 537 vs 309
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 10 May 2012 vs 26 November 2009 |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz vs 589 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 102.5 billion / sec vs 2.356 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1344 vs 8 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,459.5 gflops vs 22.432 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 512 MB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5345 vs 126 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 537 vs 309 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 205 OEM
- 5.5x lower typical power consumption: 31 Watt vs 170 Watt
- 133.3x more memory clock speed: 800 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 31 Watt vs 170 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz vs 6.0 GB/s |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 205 OEM
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 | NVIDIA GeForce 205 OEM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5345 | 126 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 537 | 309 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 15511 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 41.613 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 971.208 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.281 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 40.404 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 86.208 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7038 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3686 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3361 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7038 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3686 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3361 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1839 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 | NVIDIA GeForce 205 OEM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | GK104 | GT218 |
| Launch date | 10 May 2012 | 26 November 2009 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | |
| Place in performance rating | 554 | 555 |
| Price now | $474.99 | |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 13.20 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 589 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 1344 | |
| Floating-point performance | 2,459.5 gflops | 22.432 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | |
| Pipelines | 1344 | 8 |
| Texture fill rate | 102.5 billion / sec | 2.356 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 170 Watt | 31 Watt |
| Transistor count | 3,540 million | 260 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| Display Connectors | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI..., 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, 1x VGA |
| G-SYNC support | ||
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 9.5" (24.1 cm) | 168 mm |
| SLI options | 3-way | |
| Supplementary power connectors | Two 6-pin | None |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB / s | 6.4 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 256-bit GDDR5 | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | 800 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR2 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Gaming | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| CUDA | ||
| FXAA | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| SLI | ||
| TXAA | ||
