Intel UHD Graphics 600 vs Intel HD Graphics 610
Vergleichende Analyse von Intel UHD Graphics 600 und Intel HD Graphics 610 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 Intel UHD Graphics 600
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 1 Jahr(e) 3 Monat(e) später
- 2.2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1000 vs 464
- 2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1701 vs 845
- 2.2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1000 vs 464
- 2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1701 vs 845
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 11 December 2017 vs 30 August 2016 |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1000 vs 464 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1701 vs 845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1000 vs 464 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1701 vs 845 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der Intel HD Graphics 610
- Etwa 50% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:300 MHz vs 200 MHz
- Etwa 47% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1100 MHz vs 750 MHz
- 2.2x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 693 vs 318
- Etwa 68% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 155 vs 92
- 2.4x bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 2443 vs 1004
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1017 vs 476
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1017 vs 476
| Spezifikationen | |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 300 MHz vs 200 MHz |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1100 MHz vs 750 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 693 vs 318 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 155 vs 92 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2443 vs 1004 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1017 vs 476 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1017 vs 476 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 600
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 610
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| 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 | Intel UHD Graphics 600 | Intel HD Graphics 610 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 318 | 693 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 92 | 155 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1004 | 2443 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 5.952 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 56.77 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.427 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 5.876 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 6.882 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 476 | 1017 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1000 | 464 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1701 | 845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 476 | 1017 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1000 | 464 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1701 | 845 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 0 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| Intel UHD Graphics 600 | Intel HD Graphics 610 | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Generation 9.5 | Generation 9.5 |
| Codename | Gemini Lake GT1 | Kaby Lake GT1 |
| Startdatum | 11 December 2017 | 30 August 2016 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 1624 | 1531 |
| Typ | Laptop | Laptop |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 750 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 200 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Leitungssysteme | 12 | 12 |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 5 Watt | 5 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 189 million | 189 million |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 422.4 gflops | |
| Texturfüllrate | 26.4 GTexel / s | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | No outputs | No outputs |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x1 |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Speicher |
||
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 64 / 128 Bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
| Speichertyp | DDR4 / LPDDR4 | DDR3L / LPDDR3 / DDR4 |
| Gemeinsamer Speicher | 1 | 1 |
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 32 GB | |
Technologien |
||
| Quick Sync | ||

