NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER versus AMD Radeon R9 M390X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and AMD Radeon R9 M390X 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 SUPER
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 4 ans 6 mois plus tard
- 2.1x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1530 MHz versus 723 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 138.0 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
- 2.8x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 10145 versus 3597
- Environ 73% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 753 versus 435
- 2.5x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 55409 versus 22044
- 2.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 178.926 versus 64.199
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1940.024 versus 1284.053
- Environ 90% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 11.167 versus 5.881
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 102.69 versus 78.169
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 802.026 versus 312.822
- 2.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 13569 versus 6508
- 2.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 13569 versus 6508
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 22 Nov 2019 versus 5 May 2015 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1530 MHz versus 723 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 138.0 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel / s |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm versus 28 nm |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 10145 versus 3597 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 753 versus 435 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 55409 versus 22044 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 178.926 versus 64.199 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1940.024 versus 1284.053 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.167 versus 5.881 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 102.69 versus 78.169 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 802.026 versus 312.822 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13569 versus 6508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13569 versus 6508 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 M390X
- Environ 60% de pipelines plus haut: 2048 versus 1280
- Environ 33% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 100 Watt
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8593 versus 3715
- 7.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 24690 versus 3357
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8593 versus 3715
- 7.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 24690 versus 3357
| Caractéristiques | |
| Pipelines | 2048 versus 1280 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 100 Watt |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8593 versus 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 24690 versus 3357 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8593 versus 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 24690 versus 3357 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M390X
| 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 SUPER | AMD Radeon R9 M390X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 10145 | 3597 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 753 | 435 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 55409 | 22044 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 178.926 | 64.199 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1940.024 | 1284.053 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.167 | 5.881 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 102.69 | 78.169 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 802.026 | 312.822 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13569 | 6508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 8593 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 24690 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13569 | 6508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 8593 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 24690 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4669 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | AMD Radeon R9 M390X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |
| Nom de code | TU116 | Amethyst |
| Date de sortie | 22 Nov 2019 | 5 May 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 269 | 303 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1725 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1530 MHz | 723 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 138.0 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 4.416 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 2048 |
| Pixel fill rate | 55.20 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 138.0 GTexel/s | 92.54 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 6600 million | 5,000 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,961 gflops | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1xDVI, 1xHDMI, 1xDisplayPort | No outputs |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 9 inches (229 mm) | |
| Énergie du systeme recommandé (PSU) | 350 Watt | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | None |
| Largeur | Dual-slot | |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
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 | 192 GB/s | 160.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 256 bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| DualGraphics | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Graphiques changeables | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
AMDRadeon HD 6610M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
AMDRadeon R9 M485X
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
AMDRadeon Pro 5600M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
NVIDIAGeForce RTX 3050 Ti
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
AMDRadeon Pro W6600M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 SUPER vs
NVIDIARTX A2000 Mobile
