Intel UHD Graphics 617 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
Vergleichende Analyse von Intel UHD Graphics 617 und Intel UHD Graphics 630 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: Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der Intel UHD Graphics 617
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 1 Jahr(e) 2 Monat(e) später
- 875x mehr Texturfüllrate: 25.20 GTexel/s vs 28.8 GTexel / s
| Startdatum | 7 November 2018 vs 1 September 2017 |
| Texturfüllrate | 25.20 GTexel/s vs 28.8 GTexel / s |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der Intel UHD Graphics 630
- Etwa 17% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:350 MHz vs 300 MHz
- Etwa 14% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1200 MHz vs 1050 MHz
- Etwa 41% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4657 vs 3300
- Etwa 42% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1870 vs 1313
- Etwa 42% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1870 vs 1313
- Etwa 9% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1596 vs 1461
- Etwa 9% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1596 vs 1461
- 2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3309 vs 1633
- 2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3309 vs 1633
- Etwa 30% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 299 vs 230
- Etwa 45% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1237 vs 856
| Spezifikationen | |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 350 MHz vs 300 MHz |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1200 MHz vs 1050 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4657 vs 3300 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1870 vs 1313 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1870 vs 1313 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1596 vs 1461 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1596 vs 1461 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3309 vs 1633 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3309 vs 1633 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 299 vs 230 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1237 vs 856 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 617
GPU 2: Intel UHD Graphics 630
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
| Name | Intel UHD Graphics 617 | Intel UHD Graphics 630 |
|---|---|---|
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3300 | 4657 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1313 | 1870 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1313 | 1870 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1461 | 1596 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1461 | 1596 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1633 | 3309 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1633 | 3309 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 230 | 299 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 856 | 1237 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.517 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 354.254 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.807 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 20.323 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 29.327 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 68 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| Intel UHD Graphics 617 | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Generation 9.5 | Generation 9.5 |
| Codename | Amber Lake GT2 | Coffee Lake GT2 |
| Startdatum | 7 November 2018 | 1 September 2017 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 1233 | 1234 |
| Typ | Laptop | Desktop |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1050 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 300 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 100.8 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 806.4 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 403.2 GFLOPS | |
| Leitungssysteme | 24 | 24 |
| Pixel-Füllrate | 3.150 GPixel/s | |
| Texturfüllrate | 25.20 GTexel/s | 28.8 GTexel / s |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 15 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 460.8 gflops | |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 189 million | |
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 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 64 / 128 Bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
| Speichertyp | DDR3L / LPDDR3 | |
| Gemeinsamer Speicher | 1 | |
Technologien |
||
| Quick Sync | ||


