AMD Radeon HD 6450 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
Vergleichende Analyse von AMD Radeon HD 6450 und NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M 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 Radeon HD 6450
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 3 Monat(e) später
- 3.3x mehr Leitungssysteme: 160 vs 48
- Etwa 55% bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 200.0 gflops vs 129.02 gflops
- Etwa 55% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 119 vs 77
- Etwa 17% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 97.327 vs 83.376
- 3.9x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 19.314 vs 4.992
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 7 April 2011 vs 5 January 2011 |
| Leitungssysteme | 160 vs 48 |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 200.0 gflops vs 129.02 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 119 vs 77 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 97.327 vs 83.376 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 19.314 vs 4.992 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
- Etwa 18% höhere Texturfüllrate: 5.9 billion / sec vs 5 GTexel / s
- 2.5x geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 12 Watt vs 30 Watt
- Etwa 44% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 286 vs 198
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 1313 vs 633
- Etwa 72% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 3.237 vs 1.878
- Etwa 13% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.26 vs 0.231
- Etwa 19% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 5.92 vs 4.982
- Etwa 8% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 536 vs 497
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1731 vs 810
- Etwa 46% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2380 vs 1627
- Etwa 8% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 536 vs 497
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1731 vs 810
- Etwa 46% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2380 vs 1627
| Spezifikationen | |
| Texturfüllrate | 5.9 billion / sec vs 5 GTexel / s |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 12 Watt vs 30 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 286 vs 198 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1313 vs 633 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 3.237 vs 1.878 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.26 vs 0.231 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 5.92 vs 4.982 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 536 vs 497 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1731 vs 810 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2380 vs 1627 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 536 vs 497 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1731 vs 810 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2380 vs 1627 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: AMD Radeon HD 6450
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon HD 6450 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 198 | 286 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 119 | 77 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 633 | 1313 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 1.878 | 3.237 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 97.327 | 83.376 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.231 | 0.26 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 4.982 | 5.92 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 19.314 | 4.992 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 497 | 536 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 810 | 1731 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1627 | 2380 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 497 | 536 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 810 | 1731 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1627 | 2380 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| AMD Radeon HD 6450 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | TeraScale 2 | Fermi |
| Codename | Caicos | GF108 |
| Design | AMD Radeon HD 6000 Series | |
| Startdatum | 7 April 2011 | 5 January 2011 |
| Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $55 | $59.99 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 1627 | 1558 |
| Jetzt kaufen | $39.99 | $59.99 |
| Typ | Desktop | Laptop |
| Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 9.02 | 7.54 |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 750 MHz | |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 200.0 gflops | 129.02 gflops |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Leitungssysteme | 160 | 48 |
| Stream Processors | 160 | |
| Texturfüllrate | 5 GTexel / s | 5.9 billion / sec |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 30 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 370 million | 585 million |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 672 MHz | |
| CUDA-Kerne | 48 | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
| DisplayPort-Unterstützung | ||
| Dual-Link-DVI-Unterstützung | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Anzahl der Eyefinity-Displays | 4 | |
| VGA | ||
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Busunterstützung | PCIe 2.0 x8 | |
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Länge | 168 mm | |
| Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 11 | 12 API |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Speicherbandbreite | 8.5-12.8 GB/x (DDR3) or 25.6-28.8 GB/s (GDDR5) | 12.8 GB / s |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Speichertyp | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | |
Technologien |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Verde Drivers | ||

