NVIDIA GeForce 410M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA GeForce 410M und NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M 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 - 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), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s).
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce 410M
- Etwa 71% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:1150 MHz vs 672 MHz
- Etwa 69% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 130 vs 77
- Etwa 4% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 86.519 vs 83.376
- Etwa 41% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 7.048 vs 4.992
| Spezifikationen | |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1150 MHz vs 672 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 130 vs 77 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 86.519 vs 83.376 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 7.048 vs 4.992 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
- Etwa 28% höhere Texturfüllrate: 5.9 billion / sec vs 4.6 GTexel / s
- Etwa 17% bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 129.02 gflops vs 110.4 gflops
- Etwa 7% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 286 vs 267
- Etwa 31% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 1313 vs 1003
- Etwa 14% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 3.237 vs 2.846
- Etwa 9% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 536 vs 494
- Etwa 49% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1731 vs 1163
- Etwa 52% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2380 vs 1570
- Etwa 9% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 536 vs 494
- Etwa 49% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1731 vs 1163
- Etwa 52% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2380 vs 1570
| Spezifikationen | |
| Texturfüllrate | 5.9 billion / sec vs 4.6 GTexel / s |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 129.02 gflops vs 110.4 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 286 vs 267 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1313 vs 1003 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 3.237 vs 2.846 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 536 vs 494 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1731 vs 1163 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2380 vs 1570 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 536 vs 494 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1731 vs 1163 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2380 vs 1570 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 410M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
| 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 - 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 | NVIDIA GeForce 410M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 267 | 286 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 130 | 77 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1003 | 1313 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 2.846 | 3.237 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 86.519 | 83.376 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 7.048 | 4.992 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 494 | 536 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1163 | 1731 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1570 | 2380 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 494 | 536 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1163 | 1731 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1570 | 2380 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.26 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 5.92 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| NVIDIA GeForce 410M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Fermi 2.0 | Fermi |
| Codename | GF119 | GF108 |
| Startdatum | 5 January 2011 | 5 January 2011 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 1557 | 1558 |
| Typ | Laptop | Laptop |
| Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $59.99 | |
| Jetzt kaufen | $59.99 | |
| Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 7.54 | |
Technische Info |
||
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 1150 MHz | 672 MHz |
| CUDA-Kerne | 48 | 48 |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 110.4 gflops | 129.02 gflops |
| Gigaflops | 73 | |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Leitungssysteme | 48 | 48 |
| Texturfüllrate | 4.6 GTexel / s | 5.9 billion / sec |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 12 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 292 million | 585 million |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI | No outputs |
| HDMI | ||
| Maximale VGA-Auflösung | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi-Monitor-Unterstützung | ||
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Busunterstützung | PCI-E 2.0 | |
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 API |
| OpenGL | 1 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Speicher |
||
| Speicherbandbreite | 12.8 GB / s | 12.8 GB / s |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Speichertyp | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | 0 |
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 1 GB | |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 800 MHz | |
Technologien |
||
| CUDA | ||
| Power management | 8.0 | |
| DirectCompute | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Verde Drivers | ||


