NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M 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 3 ans 0 mois plus tard
- 3.4x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 112
- 2.1x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 652.8 gflops versus 308 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 65 nm
- Environ 44% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 45 Watt versus 65 Watt
- 3.2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1202 versus 381
- 5.8x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 239 versus 41
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 22 March 2012 versus 3 March 2009 |
| Pipelines | 384 versus 112 |
| Performance á point flottant | 652.8 gflops versus 308 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt versus 65 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1202 versus 381 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 239 versus 41 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M
- Environ 61% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3085 versus 1913
- Environ 61% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3085 versus 1913
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3085 versus 1913 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3085 versus 1913 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Nom | NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1202 | 381 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 239 | 41 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3802 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 9.947 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 340.824 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.982 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 18.773 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 23.111 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2283 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3299 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1913 | 3085 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2283 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3299 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1913 | 3085 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 414 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Tesla |
| Nom de code | GK107 | G92 |
| Date de sortie | 22 March 2012 | 3 March 2009 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1188 | 1457 |
| Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 950 MHz | |
| Noyaux CUDA | 384 | 112 |
| Performance á point flottant | 652.8 gflops | 308 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 112 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,270 million | 754 million |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1375 MHz | |
| Gigaflops | 462 | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 31 billion / sec | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI |
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Résolution VGA maximale | Up to 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Contribution d’audio pour HDMI | S / PDIF | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | large |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | |
| Options SLI | 2-way | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 API | 10.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3\GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 61 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||
| HybridPower | ||
| Power management | 8.0 | |
| PureVideo HD | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GT 650M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 285
NVIDIAGeForce GT 650M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 5870
NVIDIAGeForce GT 650M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 3400
NVIDIAGeForce GT 650M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 645M
NVIDIAGeForce GT 650M vs
AMDRadeon R6 M255DX
NVIDIAGeForce GT 650M vs
AMDFirePro W2100
