NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER versus NVIDIA Quadro P2200
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and NVIDIA Quadro P2200 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire. 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 5 mois plus tard
- Environ 53% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1530 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 16% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1725 MHz versus 1493 MHz
- Environ 16% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 138.0 GTexel/s versus 119.4 GTexel/s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 12 nm versus 16 nm
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 10145 versus 9321
- Environ 76% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 55409 versus 31476
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 178.926 versus 121.124
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 11.167 versus 8.452
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 802.026 versus 510.941
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 13569 versus 11437
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 versus 1676
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 13569 versus 11437
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 versus 1676
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 4669 versus 3404
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 22 Nov 2019 versus 10 June 2019 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1530 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1725 MHz versus 1493 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 138.0 GTexel/s versus 119.4 GTexel/s |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm versus 16 nm |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 10145 versus 9321 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 55409 versus 31476 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 178.926 versus 121.124 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.167 versus 8.452 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 802.026 versus 510.941 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13569 versus 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 versus 1676 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13569 versus 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 versus 1676 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4669 versus 3404 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro P2200
- Environ 33% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 100 Watt
- Environ 25% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 5 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 919 versus 753
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1958.592 versus 1940.024
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.742 versus 102.69
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 100 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 5 GB versus 4 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 919 versus 753 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1958.592 versus 1940.024 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.742 versus 102.69 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 versus 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 versus 3715 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro P2200
| 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 |
|
|
| Nom | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 10145 | 9321 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 753 | 919 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 55409 | 31476 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 178.926 | 121.124 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1940.024 | 1958.592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.167 | 8.452 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 102.69 | 120.742 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 802.026 | 510.941 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13569 | 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 1676 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13569 | 11437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 1676 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4669 | 3404 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | NVIDIA Quadro P2200 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
| Nom de code | TU116 | GP106 |
| Date de sortie | 22 Nov 2019 | 10 June 2019 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 269 | 304 |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1725 MHz | 1493 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1530 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm | 16 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 138.0 GFLOPS (1:32) | 119.4 GFLOPS |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) | 59.72 GFLOPS |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 4.416 TFLOPS | 3.822 TFLOPS |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 1280 |
| Pixel fill rate | 55.20 GPixel/s | 59.72 GPixel/s |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 138.0 GTexel/s | 119.4 GTexel/s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 6600 million | 4400 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1xDVI, 1xHDMI, 1xDisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| HDMI | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 9 inches (229 mm) | 201 mm (7.9") |
| Énergie du systeme recommandé (PSU) | 350 Watt | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | None |
| Largeur | Dual-slot | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 5 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 192 GB/s | 200.2 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 160 bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |
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
