NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
Comparaison des cartes vidéo NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 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: GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), Geekbench - OpenCL, PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 41349 versus 39420
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41349 versus 39420 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
- Environ 24% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1485 MHz versus 1200 MHz
- Environ 3% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1665 MHz versus 1620 MHz
- 4x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 8000 MHz versus 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective)
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10959 versus 7682
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10959 versus 7682
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 577 versus 430
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 7878 versus 6923
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1485 MHz versus 1200 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1665 MHz versus 1620 MHz |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 8000 MHz versus 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10959 versus 7682 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10959 versus 7682 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 versus 3703 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 versus 3703 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3356 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 577 versus 430 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 7878 versus 6923 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
| Nom | NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7682 | 10959 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7682 | 10959 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3703 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3703 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3358 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 41349 | 39420 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 430 | 577 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6923 | 7878 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 134.955 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1294.279 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.756 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 91.78 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 569.916 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3598 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Turing | Turing |
| Nom de code | TU117 | TU107 |
| Date de sortie | 27 May 2019 | 30 April 2019 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 381 | 359 |
| Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $179 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1620 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1200 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 103.7 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 6.636 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.318 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 1024 | |
| Pixel fill rate | 51.84 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 103.7 GTexel/s | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt | |
| Compte de transistor | 4700 million | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Compte DisplayPort | 1 | |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| HDMI | ||
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 | 12.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 128.0 GB/s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2000 MHz (8000 MHz effective) | 8000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Max-Q avec des autres
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
ATIRadeon X1900 GT
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
ATIRadeon HD 2900 PRO
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon R9 280X
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
NVIDIAQuadro P3000
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
AMDRadeon RX 5300M
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Max-Q vs
IntelArc A370M
