NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 versus AMD Radeon RX 480
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and AMD Radeon RX 480 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 2 ans 10 mois plus tard
- Environ 33% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1485 MHz versus 1120 MHz
- Environ 32% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1665 MHz versus 1266 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 12 nm versus 14 nm
- Environ 14% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 8000 MHz versus 7000 MHz
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 39403 versus 39077
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 134.955 versus 103.851
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1294.279 versus 769.541
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 8.756 versus 7.593
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 91.78 versus 67.879
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 30 April 2019 versus 29 June 2016 |
Vitesse du noyau | 1485 MHz versus 1120 MHz |
Vitesse augmenté | 1665 MHz versus 1266 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 12 nm versus 14 nm |
Vitesse de mémoire | 8000 MHz versus 7000 MHz |
Référence | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 39403 versus 39077 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 134.955 versus 103.851 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1294.279 versus 769.541 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.756 versus 7.593 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 91.78 versus 67.879 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon RX 480
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 8629 versus 7878
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 778 versus 576
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 597.772 versus 569.916
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 11172 versus 10959
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 11172 versus 10959
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 4164 versus 3598
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 8629 versus 7878 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 778 versus 576 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 597.772 versus 569.916 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11172 versus 10959 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3719 versus 3715 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3361 versus 3358 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11172 versus 10959 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3719 versus 3715 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3361 versus 3358 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 4164 versus 3598 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GPU 2: AMD Radeon RX 480
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 RX 480 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 7878 | 8629 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 576 | 778 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 39403 | 39077 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 134.955 | 103.851 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1294.279 | 769.541 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.756 | 7.593 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 91.78 | 67.879 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 569.916 | 597.772 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10959 | 11172 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 3719 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3361 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10959 | 11172 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 3719 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3361 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3598 | 4164 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 | AMD Radeon RX 480 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Turing | GCN 4.0 |
Nom de code | TU107 | Ellesmere |
Date de sortie | 30 April 2019 | 29 June 2016 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $179 | $229 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 359 | 340 |
Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Conception | Radeon RX 400 Series | |
Génération GCN | 4th Gen | |
Prix maintenant | $299.99 | |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 39.12 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1665 MHz | 1266 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 1485 MHz | 1120 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 12 nm | 14 nm |
Unités de Compute | 36 | |
Performance á point flottant | 5.8 TFLOPs | |
GPU Power | 110 Watt | |
Pipelines | 2304 | |
Stream Processors | 2304 | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 182.3 GTexel / s | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 150 Watt | |
Compte de transistor | 5,700 million | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI, 3x 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 | 1x 6-pin |
Bridgeless CrossFire | ||
Soutien de bus | n / a | |
Longeur | 241 mm | |
Énergie du systeme recommandé (PSU) | 500 Watt | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | 2.0 | |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
Vitesse de mémoire | 8000 MHz | 7000 MHz |
RAM maximale | 4 GB | |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 224 GB/s | |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 bit | |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
4K H264 Decode | ||
4K H264 Encode | ||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
AMD Radeon™ Chill | ||
AMD Radeon™ ReLive | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
CrossFire | ||
DisplayPort 1.3 HBR / 1.4 HDR Ready | ||
Enduro | ||
FreeSync | ||
FRTC | ||
H265/HEVC Decode | ||
H265/HEVC Encode | ||
HD3D | ||
HDMI 2.0b | ||
HDMI 4K Support | ||
LiquidVR | ||
PowerTune | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Video Code Engine (VCE) | ||
Virtual Super Resolution (VSR) | ||
VR Ready | ||
ZeroCore |