Intel UHD Graphics 605 vs AMD Radeon R5 Graphics
Vergleichende Analyse von Intel UHD Graphics 605 und AMD Radeon R5 Graphics 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).
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der Intel UHD Graphics 605
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 1 Jahr(e) 6 Monat(e) später
- Ein neuerer Herstellungsprozess ermöglicht eine leistungsfähigere, aber dennoch kühlere Grafikkarte: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 3x geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 5 Watt vs 15 Watt
- Etwa 21% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1643 vs 1363
- Etwa 2% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1961 vs 1915
- Etwa 21% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1643 vs 1363
- Etwa 2% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1961 vs 1915
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 11 December 2017 vs 31 May 2016 |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 5 Watt vs 15 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1643 vs 1363 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1961 vs 1915 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1643 vs 1363 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1961 vs 1915 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der AMD Radeon R5 Graphics
- 14.2x mehr Leitungssysteme: 256 vs 18
- 2x bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 2981 vs 1458
- Etwa 49% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 6.331 vs 4.247
- 2.3x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 119.568 vs 52.728
- Etwa 74% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.543 vs 0.312
- 3.8x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 12.649 vs 3.355
- 10.1x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 42.459 vs 4.219
- Etwa 33% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 966 vs 724
- Etwa 33% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 966 vs 724
| Spezifikationen | |
| Leitungssysteme | 256 vs 18 |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2981 vs 1458 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 6.331 vs 4.247 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 119.568 vs 52.728 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.543 vs 0.312 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 12.649 vs 3.355 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 42.459 vs 4.219 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 966 vs 724 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 966 vs 724 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 605
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R5 Graphics
| 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 | Intel UHD Graphics 605 | AMD Radeon R5 Graphics |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 369 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 106 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1458 | 2981 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 4.247 | 6.331 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 52.728 | 119.568 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.312 | 0.543 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 3.355 | 12.649 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.219 | 42.459 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 724 | 966 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1643 | 1363 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1961 | 1915 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 724 | 966 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1643 | 1363 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1961 | 1915 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| Intel UHD Graphics 605 | AMD Radeon R5 Graphics | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Generation 9.5 | GCN 3.0 |
| Codename | Gemini Lake GT1 | Wani |
| Startdatum | 11 December 2017 | 31 May 2016 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 1550 | 1551 |
| Typ | Laptop | Desktop |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 200 MHz | 200 MHz |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Leitungssysteme | 18 | 256 |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 5 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 189 million | 2,410 million |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 388.1 gflops | |
| Texturfüllrate | 12.13 GTexel / s | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | No outputs | No outputs |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x1 | IGP |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Speicher |
||
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 64 / 128 Bit | |
| Speichertyp | DDR4 / LPDDR4 | System Shared |
| Gemeinsamer Speicher | 1 | |
Technologien |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
