AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M
Vergleichende Analyse von AMD Radeon R9 M395X und NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M 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 R9 M395X
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 6 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 79% höhere Texturfüllrate: 92.54 GTexel / s vs 51.84 GTexel / s
- Etwa 33% höhere Leitungssysteme: 2048 vs 1536
- Etwa 78% bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 2,961 gflops vs 1,659 gflops
- Etwa 49% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 733 vs 491
- Etwa 16% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 27734 vs 23826
- 3.9x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 71.057 vs 18.431
- Etwa 34% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 413.329 vs 308.42
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 5 May 2015 vs 7 October 2014 |
| Texturfüllrate | 92.54 GTexel / s vs 51.84 GTexel / s |
| Leitungssysteme | 2048 vs 1536 |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 2,961 gflops vs 1,659 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 733 vs 491 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 27734 vs 23826 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 71.057 vs 18.431 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 413.329 vs 308.42 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 vs 3342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 vs 3342 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M
- Etwa 44% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:1038 MHz vs 723 MHz
- 2.5x geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 100 Watt vs 250 Watt
- 2x mehr maximale Speichergröße: 8 GB vs 4 GB
- 2x mehr Speichertaktfrequenz: 2500 MHz vs 1250 MHz
- Etwa 42% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 7351 vs 5195
- Etwa 42% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 92.634 vs 65.367
- Etwa 43% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1146.534 vs 799.421
- Etwa 19% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.776 vs 5.718
- Etwa 44% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10572 vs 7365
- Etwa 72% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3695 vs 2154
- Etwa 44% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10572 vs 7365
- Etwa 72% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3695 vs 2154
| Spezifikationen | |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1038 MHz vs 723 MHz |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 100 Watt vs 250 Watt |
| Maximale Speichergröße | 8 GB vs 4 GB |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 2500 MHz vs 1250 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 7351 vs 5195 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 92.634 vs 65.367 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1146.534 vs 799.421 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.776 vs 5.718 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10572 vs 7365 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3695 vs 2154 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10572 vs 7365 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3695 vs 2154 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 M395X
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M
| 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 R9 M395X | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5195 | 7351 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 733 | 491 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 27734 | 23826 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 65.367 | 92.634 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 799.421 | 1146.534 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.718 | 6.776 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 71.057 | 18.431 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 413.329 | 308.42 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7365 | 10572 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2154 | 3695 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 | 3342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7365 | 10572 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2154 | 3695 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 | 3342 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 649 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| AMD Radeon R9 M395X | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | GCN 3.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Codename | Amethyst | GM204 |
| Design | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | |
| Startdatum | 5 May 2015 | 7 October 2014 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 461 | 462 |
| Typ | Desktop | Laptop |
Technische Info |
||
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 723 MHz | 1038 MHz |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 2,961 gflops | 1,659 gflops |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Leitungssysteme | 2048 | 1536 |
| Texturfüllrate | 92.54 GTexel / s | 51.84 GTexel / s |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 250 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 5,000 million | 5,200 million |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1127 MHz | |
| CUDA-Kerne | 1536 | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | No outputs | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | ||
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) Unterstützung | 1 | |
| G-SYNC-Unterstützung | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA аnalog Display-Unterstützung | 1 | |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Busunterstützung | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Schnittstelle | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Laptop-Größe | large | large |
| Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | None |
| SLI-Optionen | 1 | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| Mantle | ||
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Speicherbandbreite | 160.0 GB / s | 160 GB / s |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 256 bit | 256 Bit |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 1250 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Speichertyp | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | 0 |
Technologien |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| DualGraphics | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Umschaltbare Grafiken | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
