NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti versus AMD Radeon R9 M390X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti 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 Ti
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 4 ans 10 mois plus tard
- Environ 87% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1350 MHz versus 723 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 95.04 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
- Environ 50% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 75 Watt
- 2.1x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 7568 versus 3597
- Environ 90% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 41946 versus 22044
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 151.899 versus 64.199
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1844.67 versus 1284.053
- Environ 82% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 10.683 versus 5.881
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 115.919 versus 78.169
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 644.054 versus 312.822
- Environ 87% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 12180 versus 6508
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8926 versus 8593
- Environ 87% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 12180 versus 6508
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8926 versus 8593
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 2 Apr 2020 versus 5 May 2015 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1350 MHz versus 723 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 95.04 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel / s |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 7568 versus 3597 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41946 versus 22044 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 151.899 versus 64.199 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1844.67 versus 1284.053 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 10.683 versus 5.881 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 115.919 versus 78.169 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 644.054 versus 312.822 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12180 versus 6508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8926 versus 8593 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12180 versus 6508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8926 versus 8593 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 M390X
- 2x plus de pipelines: 2048 versus 1024
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 435 versus 388
- 3.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 24690 versus 8062
- 3.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 24690 versus 8062
| Caractéristiques | |
| Pipelines | 2048 versus 1024 |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 435 versus 388 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 24690 versus 8062 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 24690 versus 8062 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
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 Ti | AMD Radeon R9 M390X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 7568 | 3597 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 388 | 435 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41946 | 22044 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 151.899 | 64.199 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1844.67 | 1284.053 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 10.683 | 5.881 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 115.919 | 78.169 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 644.054 | 312.822 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12180 | 6508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8926 | 8593 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 8062 | 24690 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12180 | 6508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8926 | 8593 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 8062 | 24690 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3666 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | AMD Radeon R9 M390X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 3.0 |
| Nom de code | TU117 | Amethyst |
| Date de sortie | 2 Apr 2020 | 5 May 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 273 | 303 |
| Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1485 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1350 MHz | 723 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 95.04 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 6.083 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.041 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 1024 | 2048 |
| Pixel fill rate | 47.52 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 95.04 GTexel/s | 92.54 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 75 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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
| 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 | 6.5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
| Mantle | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 192.0 GB/s | 160.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 256 bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective) | |
| 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 Ti avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs
AMDRadeon R9 M485X
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1060 Mobile 6 GB
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs
NVIDIAQuadro P4000
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs
AMDRadeon RX 560X Mobile
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs
AMDRadeon Pro 5600M
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 Ti vs
AMDRadeon Pro W6600M
