Intel UHD Graphics 620 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M
Vergleichende Analyse von Intel UHD Graphics 620 und NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M 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 3 Jahr(e) 5 Monat(e) später
- Ein neuerer Herstellungsprozess ermöglicht eine leistungsfähigere, aber dennoch kühlere Grafikkarte: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 3x geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 15 Watt vs 45 Watt
- 16x mehr maximale Speichergröße: 32 GB vs 2 GB
- Etwa 7% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 241 vs 225
Spezifikationen | |
Startdatum | 1 September 2017 vs 12 March 2014 |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 45 Watt |
Maximale Speichergröße | 32 GB vs 2 GB |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 vs 225 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M
- 26.7x mehr Leitungssysteme: 640 vs 24
- 2.4x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2521 vs 1042
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 9809 vs 4592
- Etwa 40% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 37.761 vs 27.062
- Etwa 42% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 388.248 vs 273.504
- Etwa 37% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.428 vs 1.777
- Etwa 95% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 38.889 vs 19.939
- 4.7x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 151.016 vs 31.881
- 2.7x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3817 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): 3353 vs 2227
- 2.7x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3817 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): 3353 vs 2227
- 15.8x bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 979 vs 62
Spezifikationen | |
Leitungssysteme | 640 vs 24 |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2521 vs 1042 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 9809 vs 4592 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 37.761 vs 27.062 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 388.248 vs 273.504 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.428 vs 1.777 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 38.889 vs 19.939 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 151.016 vs 31.881 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3817 vs 1397 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3685 vs 878 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 vs 2227 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3817 vs 1397 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3685 vs 878 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 vs 2227 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 979 vs 62 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 620
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M
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 850M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1042 | 2521 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 | 225 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4592 | 9809 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.062 | 37.761 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 273.504 | 388.248 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.777 | 2.428 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.939 | 38.889 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 31.881 | 151.016 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1397 | 3817 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 878 | 3685 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2227 | 3353 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1397 | 3817 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 878 | 3685 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2227 | 3353 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 62 | 979 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
Intel UHD Graphics 620 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Generation 9.5 | Maxwell |
Codename | Kaby Lake GT2 | GM107 |
Startdatum | 1 September 2017 | 12 March 2014 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 1380 | 896 |
Typ | Laptop | Laptop |
Technische Info |
||
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1150 MHz | |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 300 MHz | |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Leitungssysteme | 24 | 640 |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 15 Watt | 45 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 189 million | 1,870 million |
CUDA-Kerne | 640 | |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 1,155 gflops | |
Texturfüllrate | 36.08 GTexel / s | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Display-Anschlüsse | No outputs | No outputs |
7.1-Kanal HD-Audio auf HDMI | ||
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) Unterstützung | Up to 3840x2160 | |
eDP 1.2 Signalunterstützung | Up to 3840x2160 | |
HDCP-Inhaltsschutz | ||
HDMI | ||
Unterstützung von LVDS-Signalen | Up to 1920x1200 | |
TrueHD und DTS-HD Audio Bitstreaming | ||
VGA аnalog Display-Unterstützung | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Busunterstützung | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
Laptop-Größe | medium sized | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Speicher |
||
Maximale RAM-Belastung | 32 GB | 2 GB |
Breite des Speicherbusses | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Speichertyp | LPDDR3 / DDR4 | DDR3, GDDR5 |
Gemeinsamer Speicher | 1 | 0 |
Speicherbandbreite | 80.0 GB / s | |
Standard-Speicherkonfiguration | DDR3 or GDDR5 | |
Technologien |
||
Quick Sync | ||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
Ansel | ||
BatteryBoost | ||
CUDA | ||
Direct Compute | ||
FXAA | ||
GeForce Experience | ||
GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
GPU Boost | ||
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
Optimus | ||
SLI | ||
TXAA |