NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M versus ATI Radeon HD 5750
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M and ATI Radeon HD 5750 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire, Technologies. Analyse du performance de référence des cartes vidéo: 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.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 5 mois plus tard
- Environ 36% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 950 MHz versus 700 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- Environ 91% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 45 Watt versus 86 Watt
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1205 versus 1166
- 3.9x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 3797 versus 971
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 9.947 versus 7.384
- Environ 45% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.982 versus 0.679
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2283 versus 2124
- Environ 88% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3299 versus 1757
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2283 versus 2124
- Environ 88% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3299 versus 1757
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 22 March 2012 versus 13 October 2009 |
Vitesse augmenté | 950 MHz versus 700 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt versus 86 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1205 versus 1166 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3797 versus 971 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 9.947 versus 7.384 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.982 versus 0.679 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2283 versus 2124 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3299 versus 1757 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2283 versus 2124 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3299 versus 1757 |
Raisons pour considerer le ATI Radeon HD 5750
- Environ 88% de pipelines plus haut: 720 versus 384
- Environ 54% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,008.0 gflops versus 652.8 gflops
- 2.6x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 4600 MHz versus 1800 MHz
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 336 versus 238
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 460.31 versus 340.824
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 23.118 versus 18.773
- 2.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 53.346 versus 23.111
- Environ 75% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3347 versus 1913
- Environ 75% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3347 versus 1913
Caractéristiques | |
Pipelines | 720 versus 384 |
Performance á point flottant | 1,008.0 gflops versus 652.8 gflops |
Vitesse de mémoire | 4600 MHz versus 1800 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 336 versus 238 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 460.31 versus 340.824 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.118 versus 18.773 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 53.346 versus 23.111 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3347 versus 1913 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3347 versus 1913 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
GPU 2: ATI Radeon HD 5750
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) |
|
|
Nom | NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M | ATI Radeon HD 5750 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1205 | 1166 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 238 | 336 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3797 | 971 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 9.947 | 7.384 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 340.824 | 460.31 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.982 | 0.679 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 18.773 | 23.118 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 23.111 | 53.346 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2283 | 2124 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3299 | 1757 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1913 | 3347 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2283 | 2124 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3299 | 1757 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1913 | 3347 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 414 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M | ATI Radeon HD 5750 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Kepler | TeraScale 2 |
Nom de code | GK107 | Juniper |
Date de sortie | 22 March 2012 | 13 October 2009 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1218 | 1220 |
Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
Conception | ATI Radeon HD 5000 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 950 MHz | 700 MHz |
Noyaux CUDA | 384 | |
Performance á point flottant | 652.8 gflops | 1,008.0 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 720 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 86 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,270 million | 1,040 million |
Vitesse du noyau | 700 MHz | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 25.2 GTexel / s | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Résolution VGA maximale | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Longeur | 178 mm | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 API | 11 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 1 GB | 1 GB |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128bit | 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 4600 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3\GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 73.6 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
DirectCompute | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
Optimus | ||
AMD Eyefinity |