NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), Geekbench - OpenCL, PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q
- Around 5% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 41322 vs 39405
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41322 vs 39405 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
- Around 24% higher core clock speed: 1485 MHz vs 1200 MHz
- Around 3% higher boost clock speed: 1665 MHz vs 1620 MHz
- 4x more memory clock speed: 8000 MHz vs 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective)
- Around 43% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10959 vs 7682
- Around 43% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10959 vs 7682
- Around 34% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 576 vs 430
- Around 14% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 7877 vs 6923
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1485 MHz vs 1200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1665 MHz vs 1620 MHz |
| Memory clock speed | 8000 MHz vs 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10959 vs 7682 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10959 vs 7682 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 3703 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 3703 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3356 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 576 vs 430 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 7877 vs 6923 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7682 | 10959 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7682 | 10959 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3703 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3703 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3358 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41322 | 39405 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 430 | 576 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6923 | 7877 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 134.955 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1294.279 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.756 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 91.78 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 569.916 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3597 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Code name | TU117 | TU107 |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 | 30 April 2019 |
| Place in performance rating | 381 | 359 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $179 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1620 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 103.7 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 6.636 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.318 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 1024 | |
| Pixel fill rate | 51.84 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 103.7 GTexel/s | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt | |
| Transistor count | 4700 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| DisplayPort count | 1 | |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| HDMI | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| Width | IGP | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) | 8000 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q with others
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
ATIRadeon X1900 GT
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
ATIRadeon HD 2900 PRO
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon R9 280X
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAQuadro P3000
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon RX 5300M
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
IntelArc A370M
