NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 versus AMD Radeon R9 290X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and AMD Radeon R9 290X 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
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 5 ans 6 mois plus tard
- Environ 76% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1665 MHz versus 947 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 12 nm versus 28 nm
- 6.4x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 8000 MHz versus 1250 MHz
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 134.955 versus 114.883
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10959 versus 8729
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10959 versus 8729
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 30 April 2019 versus 24 October 2013 |
Vitesse augmenté | 1665 MHz versus 947 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 12 nm versus 28 nm |
Vitesse de mémoire | 8000 MHz versus 1250 MHz |
Référence | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 134.955 versus 114.883 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10959 versus 8729 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3353 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10959 versus 8729 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3353 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 290X
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 8644 versus 7878
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 770 versus 576
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 42508 versus 39405
- Environ 90% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2460.464 versus 1294.279
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 11.12 versus 8.756
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.942 versus 91.78
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 628.757 versus 569.916
- Environ 90% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 7055 versus 3715
- Environ 90% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 7055 versus 3715
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3949 versus 3597
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 8644 versus 7878 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 770 versus 576 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 42508 versus 39405 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2460.464 versus 1294.279 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.12 versus 8.756 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 120.942 versus 91.78 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 628.757 versus 569.916 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 7055 versus 3715 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 7055 versus 3715 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3949 versus 3597 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 290X
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 | AMD Radeon R9 290X |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 7878 | 8644 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 576 | 770 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 39405 | 42508 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 134.955 | 114.883 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1294.279 | 2460.464 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.756 | 11.12 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 91.78 | 120.942 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 569.916 | 628.757 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10959 | 8729 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 7055 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3353 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10959 | 8729 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 7055 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3353 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3597 | 3949 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 | AMD Radeon R9 290X | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Turing | GCN 2.0 |
Nom de code | TU107 | Hawaii |
Date de sortie | 30 April 2019 | 24 October 2013 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $179 | $549 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 359 | 287 |
Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1665 MHz | 947 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 1485 MHz | |
Processus de fabrication | 12 nm | 28 nm |
Performance á point flottant | 5,632 gflops | |
Pipelines | 2816 | |
Stream Processors | 2560 | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 176.0 GTexel / s | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | |
Compte de transistor | 6,200 million | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Compte DisplayPort | 1 | |
Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
HDMI | ||
Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
Eyefinity | ||
VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin |
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
Longeur | 275 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
Vitesse de mémoire | 8000 MHz | 1250 MHz |
RAM maximale | 4 GB | |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 320 GB/s | |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 512 Bit | |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
LiquidVR | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) |