NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti versus NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti 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 Ti
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 10 mois plus tard
- 2.3x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1350 MHz versus 600 MHz
- Environ 22% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1485 MHz versus 1215 MHz
- Environ 20% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 60 Watt
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 388 versus 343
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 115.919 versus 94.532
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 12180 versus 10140
- 2.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8926 versus 3706
- 2.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 8062 versus 3351
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 12180 versus 10140
- 2.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8926 versus 3706
- 2.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 8062 versus 3351
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 2 Apr 2020 versus 27 May 2019 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1350 MHz versus 600 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1485 MHz versus 1215 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 60 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 388 versus 343 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 115.919 versus 94.532 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12180 versus 10140 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8926 versus 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 8062 versus 3351 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12180 versus 10140 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8926 versus 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 8062 versus 3351 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q
- Environ 84% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 175.0 GTexel/s versus 95.04 GTexel/s
- 2.3x plus de pipelines: 2304 versus 1024
- Environ 50% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 6 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 8366 versus 7566
- Environ 63% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 68305 versus 41946
- Environ 45% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 220.867 versus 151.899
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2046.214 versus 1844.67
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 16.026 versus 10.683
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 175.0 GTexel/s versus 95.04 GTexel/s |
| Pipelines | 2304 versus 1024 |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 6 GB versus 4 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 8366 versus 7566 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 68305 versus 41946 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 220.867 versus 151.899 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2046.214 versus 1844.67 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 16.026 versus 10.683 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 645.647 versus 644.054 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti
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 Ti | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 7566 | 8366 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 388 | 343 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41946 | 68305 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 151.899 | 220.867 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1844.67 | 2046.214 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 10.683 | 16.026 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 115.919 | 94.532 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 644.054 | 645.647 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12180 | 10140 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8926 | 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 8062 | 3351 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12180 | 10140 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8926 | 3706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 8062 | 3351 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3666 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Ti | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Nom de code | TU117 | TU106 |
| Date de sortie | 2 Apr 2020 | 27 May 2019 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 273 | 325 |
| Genre | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1485 MHz | 1215 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1350 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 95.04 GFLOPS (1:32) | 175.0 GFLOPS |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 6.083 TFLOPS (2:1) | 11.20 TFLOPS |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.041 TFLOPS | 5.599 TFLOPS |
| Pipelines | 1024 | 2304 |
| Pixel fill rate | 47.52 GPixel/s | 77.76 GPixel/s |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 95.04 GTexel/s | 175.0 GTexel/s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4700 million | 10800 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
| Largeur | IGP | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 192.0 GB/s | 448 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 256 bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1500 MHz (12000 MHz effective) | |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
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
