NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti versus NVIDIA Quadro P4000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti and NVIDIA Quadro P4000 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 3 ans 1 mois plus tard
- Environ 12% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1350 MHz versus 1202 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 95.04 GTexel/s versus 165.8 GTexel / s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 12 nm versus 16 nm
- 2x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 100 Watt
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1844.67 versus 1590.392
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 115.919 versus 45.977
- 2.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8926 versus 3714
- 2.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 8062 versus 3358
- 2.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8926 versus 3714
- 2.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 8062 versus 3358
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 2 Apr 2020 versus 6 February 2017 |
Vitesse du noyau | 1350 MHz versus 1202 MHz |
Vitesse augmenté | 1485 MHz versus 1480 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 95.04 GTexel/s versus 165.8 GTexel / s |
Processus de fabrication | 12 nm versus 16 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 100 Watt |
Référence | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1844.67 versus 1590.392 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 115.919 versus 45.977 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8926 versus 3714 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 8062 versus 3358 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8926 versus 3714 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 8062 versus 3358 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro P4000
- Environ 75% de pipelines plus haut: 1792 versus 1024
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 8 GB versus 4 GB
- 5.1x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 7604 MHz versus 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective)
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 11624 versus 7540
- 2.1x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 815 versus 385
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 11.365 versus 10.683
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 751.626 versus 644.054
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 15267 versus 12180
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 15267 versus 12180
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 4904 versus 3658
Caractéristiques | |
Pipelines | 1792 versus 1024 |
Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 4 GB |
Vitesse de mémoire | 7604 MHz versus 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective) |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 11624 versus 7540 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 815 versus 385 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 42289 versus 42105 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 152.325 versus 151.899 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.365 versus 10.683 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 751.626 versus 644.054 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 15267 versus 12180 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 15267 versus 12180 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4904 versus 3658 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro P4000
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 Ti | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 7540 | 11624 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 385 | 815 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 42105 | 42289 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 151.899 | 152.325 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1844.67 | 1590.392 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 10.683 | 11.365 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 115.919 | 45.977 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 644.054 | 751.626 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12180 | 15267 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8926 | 3714 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 8062 | 3358 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12180 | 15267 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8926 | 3714 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 8062 | 3358 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3658 | 4904 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Turing | Pascal |
Nom de code | TU117 | GP104 |
Date de sortie | 2 Apr 2020 | 6 February 2017 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 289 | 286 |
Genre | Laptop | Workstation |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $815 | |
Prix maintenant | $799.99 | |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 17.17 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1485 MHz | 1480 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 1350 MHz | 1202 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 12 nm | 16 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 | 1792 |
Pixel fill rate | 47.52 GPixel/s | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 95.04 GTexel/s | 165.8 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 100 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 4700 million | 7,200 million |
Performance á point flottant | 5,304 gflops | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort |
Display Port | 1.4 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 1x 6-pin |
Longeur | 241 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 8 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 192.0 GB/s | 192 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 256 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective) | 7604 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Stereo | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Display Management | ||
Optimus |