NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs AMD Radeon R7 M260
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA GeForce 940MX und AMD Radeon R7 M260 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 940MX
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 2 Jahr(e) 0 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 1% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:954 MHz vs 940 MHz
- Etwa 1% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 993 MHz vs 980 MHz
- Etwa 6% höhere Texturfüllrate: 23.83 GTexel / s vs 22.56 GTexel / s
- Etwa 6% bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 762.6 gflops vs 721.9 gflops
- 5x mehr Speichertaktfrequenz: 5012 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- 2.9x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1516 vs 517
- Etwa 38% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 172 vs 125
- Etwa 23% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 6325 vs 5125
- 2x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 28.91 vs 14.249
- 2.2x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 312.94 vs 145.3
- Etwa 98% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.83 vs 0.925
- Etwa 39% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 27.833 vs 19.992
- Etwa 33% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 103.937 vs 77.895
- Etwa 77% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2486 vs 1404
- 3.3x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3587 vs 1093
- Etwa 97% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 vs 1704
- Etwa 77% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2486 vs 1404
- 3.3x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3587 vs 1093
- Etwa 97% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 vs 1704
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 28 June 2016 vs 11 June 2014 |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 954 MHz vs 940 MHz |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 993 MHz vs 980 MHz |
| Texturfüllrate | 23.83 GTexel / s vs 22.56 GTexel / s |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 762.6 gflops vs 721.9 gflops |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 5012 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1516 vs 517 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 172 vs 125 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6325 vs 5125 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 28.91 vs 14.249 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 312.94 vs 145.3 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.83 vs 0.925 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 27.833 vs 19.992 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 103.937 vs 77.895 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2486 vs 1404 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3587 vs 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 vs 1704 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2486 vs 1404 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3587 vs 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 vs 1704 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 940MX
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 M260
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce 940MX | AMD Radeon R7 M260 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1516 | 517 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 172 | 125 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6325 | 5125 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 28.91 | 14.249 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 312.94 | 145.3 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.83 | 0.925 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 27.833 | 19.992 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 103.937 | 77.895 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2486 | 1404 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3587 | 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 1704 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2486 | 1404 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3587 | 1093 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 1704 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 585 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| NVIDIA GeForce 940MX | AMD Radeon R7 M260 | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Maxwell | GCN 3.0 |
| Codename | GM108 | Topaz |
| Startdatum | 28 June 2016 | 11 June 2014 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 1071 | 1479 |
| Typ | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $799 | |
| Jetzt kaufen | $799 | |
| Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 1.33 | |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 993 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 954 MHz | 940 MHz |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 762.6 gflops | 721.9 gflops |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Leitungssysteme | 384 | 384 |
| Texturfüllrate | 23.83 GTexel / s | 22.56 GTexel / s |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 23 Watt | |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 1,870 million | 3,100 million |
| Berechnungseinheiten | 6 | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | No outputs | No outputs |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Busunterstützung | PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Laptop-Größe | medium sized | medium sized |
| Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | None |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.3 |
| Mantle | ||
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Speicherbandbreite | 40.1 GB / s | 32 GB/s |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 64 Bit | 128 bit |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 5012 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Speichertyp | DDR3, GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | 0 |
Technologien |
||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
| DualGraphics | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| PCIe 3.0 | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Umschaltbare Grafiken | ||
| Zero Core | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
