NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q versus AMD Radeon R9 M395X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q and AMD Radeon R9 M395X 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 GTX 1650 Max-Q
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 41% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1020 MHz versus 723 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 69.72 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel / s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 12 nm versus 28 nm
- 7.1x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 35 Watt versus 250 Watt
- Environ 60% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) versus 1250 MHz
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 6162 versus 5195
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 35607 versus 27707
- Environ 98% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 129.441 versus 65.367
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1047.138 versus 799.421
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 7.882 versus 5.718
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 78.563 versus 71.057
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8824 versus 7365
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3707 versus 2154
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8824 versus 7365
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3707 versus 2154
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 23 April 2019 versus 5 May 2015 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1020 MHz versus 723 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 69.72 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel / s |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt versus 250 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) versus 1250 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6162 versus 5195 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 35607 versus 27707 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 129.441 versus 65.367 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1047.138 versus 799.421 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.882 versus 5.718 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 78.563 versus 71.057 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8824 versus 7365 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3707 versus 2154 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8824 versus 7365 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3707 versus 2154 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 M395X
- 2.3x plus de pipelines: 2048 versus 896
- 2.2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 733 versus 326
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 413.329 versus 346.498
| Caractéristiques | |
| Pipelines | 2048 versus 896 |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 733 versus 326 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 413.329 versus 346.498 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 versus 3352 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 versus 3352 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M395X
| 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 GTX 1650 Max-Q | AMD Radeon R9 M395X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6162 | 5195 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 326 | 733 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 35607 | 27707 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 129.441 | 65.367 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1047.138 | 799.421 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.882 | 5.718 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 78.563 | 71.057 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 346.498 | 413.329 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8824 | 7365 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3707 | 2154 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 3354 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8824 | 7365 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3707 | 2154 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 3354 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2950 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q | AMD Radeon R9 M395X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |
| Nom de code | TU117 | Amethyst |
| Date de sortie | 23 April 2019 | 5 May 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 459 | 454 |
| Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1245 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1020 MHz | 723 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 69.72 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 4.462 TFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 2.231 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 896 | 2048 |
| Pixel fill rate | 39.84 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 69.72 GTexel/s | 92.54 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4700 million | 5,000 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,961 gflops | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | large |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | Not Listed |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
| Mantle | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 128.0 GB/s | 160.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 256 bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) | 1250 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| DualGraphics | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Graphiques changeables | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs
ATIRadeon X700 SE
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs
ATIFireGL V7200
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs
ATIFireGL V5200
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 780
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon R9 M470X
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAQuadro P5200 Max-Q
