NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 versus AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 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 1 ans 8 mois plus tard
- Environ 28% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1485 MHz versus 1156 MHz
- Environ 13% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1665 MHz versus 1471 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 12 nm versus 14 nm
- 5x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 8000 MHz versus 1600 MHz
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 94.915 versus 79.32
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 30 April 2019 versus 14 August 2017 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1485 MHz versus 1156 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1665 MHz versus 1471 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm versus 14 nm |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 8000 MHz versus 1600 MHz |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 94.915 versus 79.32 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
- Environ 66% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 13093 versus 7881
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 768 versus 564
- 4.2x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 163998 versus 39165
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 184.405 versus 134.765
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1765.06 versus 1316.075
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 12.606 versus 8.799
- Environ 78% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 1022.925 versus 573.418
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 14462 versus 10959
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 14462 versus 10959
- 4.9x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1501 versus 305
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 13093 versus 7881 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 768 versus 564 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 163998 versus 39165 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 184.405 versus 134.765 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1765.06 versus 1316.075 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 12.606 versus 8.799 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1022.925 versus 573.418 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 14462 versus 10959 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3717 versus 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3361 versus 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 14462 versus 10959 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3717 versus 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3361 versus 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1501 versus 305 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GPU 2: AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
| 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 Vega 56 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 7881 | 13093 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 564 | 768 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 39165 | 163998 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 134.765 | 184.405 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1316.075 | 1765.06 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.799 | 12.606 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 94.915 | 79.32 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 573.418 | 1022.925 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10959 | 14462 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3361 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10959 | 14462 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 3717 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3361 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 305 | 1501 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 | AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Turing | GCN 5.0 |
| Nom de code | TU107 | Vega 10 |
| Date de sortie | 30 April 2019 | 14 August 2017 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $179 | $399 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 376 | 224 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Conception | Radeon RX Vega Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1665 MHz | 1471 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1485 MHz | 1156 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Unités de Compute | 56 | |
| Performance á point flottant | 10.5 TFLOPs | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 21 TFLOPs | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 10.5 TFLOPs | |
| Pipelines | 3584 | |
| Pixel fill rate | 94.00 GP/s | |
| Render output units | 64 | |
| Stream Processors | 3584 | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 330.00 GTexel/s | |
| Texture Units | 256 | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 210 Watt | |
| Compte de transistor | 12,500 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 | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 2x 8-pin |
| Longeur | 267 mm | |
| Énergie du systeme recommandé (PSU) | 650 Watt | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| Vitesse de mémoire | 8000 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| RAM maximale | 8 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 410 GB/s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 2048 bit | |
| Genre de mémoire | HBM2 | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| AMD Radeon™ Chill | ||
| AMD Radeon™ ReLive | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| Video Code Engine (VCE) | ||
| Virtual Super Resolution (VSR) | ||
| VR Ready | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 avec des autres
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 vs
ATIRadeon HD 4810
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 980
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 vs
NVIDIATesla M6
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 vs
NVIDIAQuadro P3000
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 vs
NVIDIAQuadro T1000 Max-Q
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1650 vs
NVIDIATesla K80
