NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti 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: 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 RTX A2000 Mobile

• Around 22% higher boost clock speed: 1815 MHz vs 1485 MHz
• Around 53% higher texture fill rate: 145.2 GTexel/s vs 95.04 GTexel/s
• 2.5x more pipelines: 2560 vs 1024
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 8 nm vs 12 nm
• Around 30% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 9820 vs 7539
• Around 29% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 493 vs 381
• Around 35% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 56686 vs 42062
• Around 33% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 202.984 vs 152.235
• Around 16% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2138.158 vs 1843.045
• Around 54% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 16.498 vs 10.681
• Around 31% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 151.433 vs 115.607
• Around 13% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 729.947 vs 644.098
• Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 12750 vs 12180
• Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 12750 vs 12180

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti

• Around 84% higher core clock speed: 1350 MHz vs 735 MHz
• Around 90% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 95 Watt
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8926 vs 3708
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 8062 vs 3355
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8926 vs 3708
• 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 8062 vs 3355

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	9820 7539
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	493 381
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	56686 42062
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	202.984 152.235
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2138.158 1843.045
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	16.498 10.681
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	151.433 115.607
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	729.947 644.098
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	12750 12180
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3708 8926
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3355 8062
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	12750 12180
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3708 8926
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3355 8062

Compare specifications (specs)