AMD FirePro W2100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
Vergleichende Analyse von AMD FirePro W2100 und NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M Videokarten für alle bekannten Merkmale in den folgenden Kategorien: Essenzielles, Technische Info, Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse, Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen, API-Unterstützung, Speicher, Technologien. Benchmark-Videokarten Leistungsanalyse: 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.
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der AMD FirePro W2100
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 2 Jahr(e) 4 Monat(e) später
- 2x mehr maximale Speichergröße: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Etwa 31% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 314 vs 239
- Etwa 5% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 10.438 vs 9.947
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.991 vs 0.982
- Etwa 5% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 19.794 vs 18.773
- 2.2x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 50.338 vs 23.111
- Etwa 75% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3346 vs 1913
- Etwa 75% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3346 vs 1913
- 2.6x bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1058 vs 414
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 12 August 2014 vs 22 March 2012 |
| Maximale Speichergröße | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 314 vs 239 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.438 vs 9.947 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.991 vs 0.982 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.794 vs 18.773 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 50.338 vs 23.111 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 vs 1913 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 vs 1913 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1058 vs 414 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
- Etwa 40% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 950 MHz vs 680 MHz
- Etwa 20% höhere Leitungssysteme: 384 vs 320
- Etwa 50% bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 652.8 gflops vs 435.2 gflops
- 8.9x geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 45 Watt vs 400 Watt
- Etwa 40% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1202 vs 856
- Etwa 1% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 3802 vs 3750
- Etwa 18% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 340.824 vs 289.646
- Etwa 53% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2283 vs 1494
- Etwa 42% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3299 vs 2329
- Etwa 53% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2283 vs 1494
- Etwa 42% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3299 vs 2329
| Spezifikationen | |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 950 MHz vs 680 MHz |
| Leitungssysteme | 384 vs 320 |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 652.8 gflops vs 435.2 gflops |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 45 Watt vs 400 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1202 vs 856 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3802 vs 3750 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 340.824 vs 289.646 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2283 vs 1494 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3299 vs 2329 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2283 vs 1494 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3299 vs 2329 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: AMD FirePro W2100
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M
| 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 |
|
|
| Name | AMD FirePro W2100 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 856 | 1202 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 314 | 239 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3750 | 3802 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.438 | 9.947 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 289.646 | 340.824 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.991 | 0.982 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.794 | 18.773 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 50.338 | 23.111 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1494 | 2283 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2329 | 3299 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 | 1913 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1494 | 2283 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2329 | 3299 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 | 1913 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1058 | 414 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| AMD FirePro W2100 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |
| Codename | Oland | GK107 |
| Startdatum | 12 August 2014 | 22 March 2012 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 1185 | 1188 |
| Typ | Workstation | Laptop |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 680 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 630 MHz | |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 435.2 gflops | 652.8 gflops |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Leitungssysteme | 320 | 384 |
| Texturfüllrate | 13.6 GTexel / s | |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 400 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 1,040 million | 1,270 million |
| CUDA-Kerne | 384 | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| DisplayPort Anzahl | 2 | |
| Dual-Link-DVI-Unterstützung | ||
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Maximale VGA-Auflösung | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Busunterstützung | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
| Formfaktor | Low Profile / Half Length | |
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | |
| Laptop-Größe | medium sized | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12 API |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Speicherbandbreite | 28.8 GB / s | |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 128 Bit | 128bit |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 1800 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Speichertyp | n / a | DDR3\GDDR5 |
| Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | 0 |
Technologien |
||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| Powerplay | ||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||