Intel UHD Graphics 620 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
Vergleichende Analyse von Intel UHD Graphics 620 und NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 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 2 Jahr(e) 5 Monat(e) später
- Ein neuerer Herstellungsprozess ermöglicht eine leistungsfähigere, aber dennoch kühlere Grafikkarte: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 5x geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 15 Watt vs 75 Watt
- 8x mehr maximale Speichergröße: 32 GB vs 4 GB
Startdatum | 1 September 2017 vs 13 March 2015 |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 75 Watt |
Maximale Speichergröße | 32 GB vs 4 GB |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
- 3.7x mehr Kerntaktfrequenz: 1096 MHz vs 300 MHz
- Etwa 2% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1176 MHz vs 1150 MHz
- 26.7x mehr Leitungssysteme: 640 vs 24
- 3.2x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3366 vs 1042
- Etwa 2% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 245 vs 241
- 2.4x bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 10985 vs 4592
- 2x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 54.294 vs 27.062
- 2.9x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 795.325 vs 273.504
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.692 vs 1.777
- 2.6x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.794 vs 19.939
- 5.5x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 174.513 vs 31.881
- 3.8x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5264 vs 1397
- 4.2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3714 vs 878
- Etwa 51% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 2227
- 3.8x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5264 vs 1397
- 4.2x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3714 vs 878
- Etwa 51% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 2227
- 19.9x bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1231 vs 62
Spezifikationen | |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 1096 MHz vs 300 MHz |
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1176 MHz vs 1150 MHz |
Leitungssysteme | 640 vs 24 |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3366 vs 1042 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 245 vs 241 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 10985 vs 4592 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 54.294 vs 27.062 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 795.325 vs 273.504 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.692 vs 1.777 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.794 vs 19.939 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 174.513 vs 31.881 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5264 vs 1397 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 vs 878 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 2227 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5264 vs 1397 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 vs 878 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 2227 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1231 vs 62 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 620
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
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 960M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1042 | 3366 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 241 | 245 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4592 | 10985 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.062 | 54.294 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 273.504 | 795.325 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.777 | 3.692 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.939 | 51.794 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 31.881 | 174.513 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1397 | 5264 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 878 | 3714 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2227 | 3358 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1397 | 5264 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 878 | 3714 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2227 | 3358 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 62 | 1231 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
Intel UHD Graphics 620 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Generation 9.5 | Maxwell |
Codename | Kaby Lake GT2 | GM107 |
Startdatum | 1 September 2017 | 13 March 2015 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 1380 | 735 |
Typ | Laptop | Laptop |
Technische Info |
||
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1150 MHz | 1176 MHz |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 300 MHz | 1096 MHz |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Leitungssysteme | 24 | 640 |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 189 million | 1,870 million |
CUDA-Kerne | 640 | |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 1,505 gflops | |
Texturfüllrate | 47.04 GTexel / s | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Display-Anschlüsse | No outputs | No outputs |
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) Unterstützung | 1 | |
HDMI | ||
VGA аnalog Display-Unterstützung | 1 | |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x1 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Busunterstützung | PCI Express 3.0 | |
Laptop-Größe | medium sized | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
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 | 80 GB / s | |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 2500 MHz | |
Technologien |
||
Quick Sync | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
Ansel | ||
BatteryBoost | ||
CUDA | ||
DSR | ||
GameStream | ||
GameWorks | ||
GeForce Experience | ||
GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
GPU Boost | ||
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
Optimus | ||
SLI |