NVIDIA GeForce 940M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA GeForce 940M und NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M 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 NVIDIA GeForce 940M
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 2 Jahr(e) 11 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 28% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:1072 MHz vs 835 MHz
- Etwa 24% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1176 MHz vs 950 MHz
- Etwa 24% bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 903.2 gflops vs 729.6 gflops
- Etwa 52% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 33 Watt vs 50 Watt
- 2x mehr maximale Speichergröße: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Etwa 47% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 5982 vs 4062
- 2.4x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 25.98 vs 10.837
- Etwa 19% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.307 vs 1.098
- 3x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 101.399 vs 33.754
- Etwa 95% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2132 vs 1094
- Etwa 36% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3065 vs 2253
- Etwa 6% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 vs 3176
- Etwa 95% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2132 vs 1094
- Etwa 36% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3065 vs 2253
- Etwa 6% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 vs 3176
- Etwa 7% bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 506 vs 475
Spezifikationen | |
Startdatum | 13 March 2015 vs 22 March 2012 |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 1072 MHz vs 835 MHz |
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1176 MHz vs 950 MHz |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 903.2 gflops vs 729.6 gflops |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 33 Watt vs 50 Watt |
Maximale Speichergröße | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5982 vs 4062 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.98 vs 10.837 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.307 vs 1.098 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.837 vs 21.798 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 101.399 vs 33.754 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2132 vs 1094 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3065 vs 2253 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 vs 3176 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2132 vs 1094 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3065 vs 2253 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 vs 3176 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 506 vs 475 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M
- Etwa 8% höhere Texturfüllrate: 30.4 billion / sec vs 28.22 GTexel / s
- Etwa 11% höhere Speichertaktfrequenz: 2000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
- Etwa 28% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1445 vs 1127
- Etwa 75% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 269 vs 154
- 2.4x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 405.086 vs 168.449
Spezifikationen | |
Texturfüllrate | 30.4 billion / sec vs 28.22 GTexel / s |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 2000 MHz vs 1800 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1445 vs 1127 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 269 vs 154 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 405.086 vs 168.449 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 940M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M
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 | NVIDIA GeForce 940M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1127 | 1445 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 154 | 269 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5982 | 4062 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.98 | 10.837 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 168.449 | 405.086 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.307 | 1.098 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.837 | 21.798 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 101.399 | 33.754 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2132 | 1094 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3065 | 2253 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3176 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2132 | 1094 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3065 | 2253 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3176 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 506 | 475 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
NVIDIA GeForce 940M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Maxwell | Kepler |
Codename | GM108 | GK107 |
Startdatum | 13 March 2015 | 22 March 2012 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 1184 | 1253 |
Typ | Laptop | Laptop |
Technische Info |
||
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1176 MHz | 950 MHz |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 1072 MHz | 835 MHz |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 903.2 gflops | 729.6 gflops |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Leitungssysteme | 384 | 384 |
Texturfüllrate | 28.22 GTexel / s | 30.4 billion / sec |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 33 Watt | 50 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 1,870 million | 1,270 million |
CUDA-Kerne | 384 | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Display-Anschlüsse | No outputs | No outputs |
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Maximale VGA-Auflösung | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Busunterstützung | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Laptop-Größe | medium sized | large |
SLI-Optionen | 2-way | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 API |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Speicher |
||
Maximale RAM-Belastung | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Speicherbandbreite | 14.4 GB / s | 64.0 GB / s |
Breite des Speicherbusses | 64 Bit | 128bit |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 1800 MHz | 2000 MHz |
Speichertyp | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | 0 |
Technologien |
||
CUDA | ||
GameWorks | ||
GeForce Experience | ||
GPU Boost | ||
Optimus | ||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
FXAA | ||
SLI | ||
TXAA |