Intel UHD Graphics 620 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Desktop)
Vergleichende Analyse von Intel UHD Graphics 620 und NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Desktop) 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 620
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 10 Monat(e) später
- 5x geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 15 Watt vs 75 Watt
- 8x mehr maximale Speichergröße: 32 GB vs 4 GB
Startdatum | 1 September 2017 vs 25 October 2016 |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 75 Watt |
Maximale Speichergröße | 32 GB vs 4 GB |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Desktop)
- 4.3x mehr Kerntaktfrequenz: 1290 MHz vs 300 MHz
- Etwa 21% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1392 MHz vs 1150 MHz
- 26.7x mehr Leitungssysteme: 640 vs 24
- 4.8x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5029 vs 1042
- Etwa 90% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 457 vs 241
- 3.8x bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 17466 vs 4592
- 2.5x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.209 vs 27.062
- 2.9x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 799.414 vs 273.504
- 2.6x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.536 vs 1.777
- Etwa 53% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 30.523 vs 19.939
- 7x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 223.683 vs 31.881
- 5x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7043 vs 1397
- 4.2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3685 vs 878
- Etwa 51% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3360 vs 2227
- 5x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7043 vs 1397
- 4.2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3685 vs 878
- Etwa 51% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3360 vs 2227
- Etwa 97% bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 122 vs 62
Spezifikationen | |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 1290 MHz vs 300 MHz |
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1392 MHz vs 1150 MHz |
Leitungssysteme | 640 vs 24 |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5029 vs 1042 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 457 vs 241 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 17466 vs 4592 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.209 vs 27.062 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 799.414 vs 273.504 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.536 vs 1.777 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.523 vs 19.939 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 223.683 vs 31.881 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7043 vs 1397 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3685 vs 878 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3360 vs 2227 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7043 vs 1397 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3685 vs 878 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3360 vs 2227 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 122 vs 62 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 620
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Desktop)
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 |
|
|
Name | Intel UHD Graphics 620 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Desktop) |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1042 | 5029 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 | 457 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4592 | 17466 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.062 | 67.209 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 273.504 | 799.414 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.777 | 4.536 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.939 | 30.523 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 31.881 | 223.683 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1397 | 7043 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 878 | 3685 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2227 | 3360 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1397 | 7043 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 878 | 3685 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2227 | 3360 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 62 | 122 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
Intel UHD Graphics 620 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Desktop) | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Generation 9.5 | Pascal |
Codename | Kaby Lake GT2 | GP107 |
Startdatum | 1 September 2017 | 25 October 2016 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 1380 | 586 |
Typ | Laptop | Desktop |
Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $109 | |
Jetzt kaufen | $124.99 | |
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 56.95 | |
Technische Info |
||
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1150 MHz | 1392 MHz |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 300 MHz | 1290 MHz |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 14 nm | 14 nm |
Leitungssysteme | 24 | 640 |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 189 million | 3,300 million |
CUDA-Kerne | 640 | |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 1,862 gflops | |
Maximale GPU-Temperatur | 97 °C | |
Texturfüllrate | 58.2 GTexel / s | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Display-Anschlüsse | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort, DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI |
G-SYNC-Unterstützung | ||
HDCP | ||
Multi-Monitor-Unterstützung | ||
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Busunterstützung | PCIe 3.0 | |
Höhe | 4.38" (11.1 cm) | |
Länge | 5.7" (14.5 cm) | |
Empfohlene Systemleistung (PSU) | 300 Watt | |
Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | |
Breite | 2-slot | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_1) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Vulkan | ||
Speicher |
||
Maximale RAM-Belastung | 32 GB | 4 GB |
Breite des Speicherbusses | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Speichertyp | LPDDR3 / DDR4 | GDDR5 |
Gemeinsamer Speicher | 1 | 0 |
Speicherbandbreite | 112 GB / s | |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 7008 MHz | |
Technologien |
||
Quick Sync | ||
3D Vision | ||
Ansel | ||
CUDA | ||
GameStream | ||
GPU Boost | ||
Multi Monitor | ||
Multi-Projection | ||
ShadowWorks | ||
VR Ready |