NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER versus NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q 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
- 2.6x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1530 MHz versus 600 MHz
- Environ 42% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1725 MHz versus 1215 MHz
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 10146 versus 8366
- 2.2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 753 versus 343
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 102.69 versus 94.532
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 802.026 versus 645.647
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 13569 versus 10140
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 13569 versus 10140
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 22 Nov 2019 versus 27 May 2019 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1530 MHz versus 600 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1725 MHz versus 1215 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 10146 versus 8366 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 753 versus 343 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 102.69 versus 94.532 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 802.026 versus 645.647 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13569 versus 10140 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 versus 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 versus 3351 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13569 versus 10140 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 versus 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 versus 3351 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q
- Environ 27% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 175.0 GTexel/s versus 138.0 GTexel/s
- Environ 80% de pipelines plus haut: 2304 versus 1280
- Environ 67% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 60 Watt versus 100 Watt
- Environ 50% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 6 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 68305 versus 55409
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 220.867 versus 178.926
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2046.214 versus 1940.024
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 16.026 versus 11.167
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 175.0 GTexel/s versus 138.0 GTexel/s |
| Pipelines | 2304 versus 1280 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 60 Watt versus 100 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 6 GB versus 4 GB |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 68305 versus 55409 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 220.867 versus 178.926 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2046.214 versus 1940.024 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 16.026 versus 11.167 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q
| 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 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 10146 | 8366 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 753 | 343 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 55409 | 68305 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 178.926 | 220.867 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1940.024 | 2046.214 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.167 | 16.026 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 102.69 | 94.532 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 802.026 | 645.647 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13569 | 10140 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3351 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13569 | 10140 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3351 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4669 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Nom de code | TU116 | TU106 |
| Date de sortie | 22 Nov 2019 | 27 May 2019 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 269 | 325 |
| Genre | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1725 MHz | 1215 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1530 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 138.0 GFLOPS (1:32) | 175.0 GFLOPS |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1) | 11.20 TFLOPS |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 4.416 TFLOPS | 5.599 TFLOPS |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 2304 |
| Pixel fill rate | 55.20 GPixel/s | 77.76 GPixel/s |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 138.0 GTexel/s | 175.0 GTexel/s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 6600 million | 10800 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1xDVI, 1xHDMI, 1xDisplayPort | No outputs |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| HDMI | ||
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 | IGP |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 192 GB/s | 448 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 256 bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
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
