NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA GeForce 940MX 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 NVIDIA GeForce 940MX
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 2 Jahr(e) 3 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 96% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 23 Watt vs 45 Watt
- 2x mehr maximale Speichergröße: 4 GB vs 2 GB
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 28 June 2016 vs 12 March 2014 |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 23 Watt vs 45 Watt |
| Maximale Speichergröße | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 vs 3353 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 vs 3353 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M
- Etwa 51% höhere Texturfüllrate: 36.08 GTexel / s vs 23.83 GTexel / s
- Etwa 67% höhere Leitungssysteme: 640 vs 384
- Etwa 51% bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 1,155 gflops vs 762.6 gflops
- Etwa 66% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2521 vs 1516
- Etwa 31% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 225 vs 172
- Etwa 55% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 9809 vs 6325
- Etwa 31% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 37.761 vs 28.91
- Etwa 24% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 388.248 vs 312.94
- Etwa 33% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.428 vs 1.83
- Etwa 40% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 38.889 vs 27.833
- Etwa 45% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 151.016 vs 103.937
- Etwa 54% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3817 vs 2486
- Etwa 3% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3685 vs 3587
- Etwa 54% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3817 vs 2486
- Etwa 3% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3685 vs 3587
- Etwa 67% bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 979 vs 585
| Spezifikationen | |
| Texturfüllrate | 36.08 GTexel / s vs 23.83 GTexel / s |
| Leitungssysteme | 640 vs 384 |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 1,155 gflops vs 762.6 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2521 vs 1516 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 225 vs 172 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9809 vs 6325 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 37.761 vs 28.91 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 388.248 vs 312.94 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.428 vs 1.83 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 38.889 vs 27.833 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 151.016 vs 103.937 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3817 vs 2486 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3685 vs 3587 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3817 vs 2486 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3685 vs 3587 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 979 vs 585 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 940MX
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 | NVIDIA GeForce 940MX | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1516 | 2521 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 172 | 225 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6325 | 9809 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 28.91 | 37.761 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 312.94 | 388.248 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.83 | 2.428 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 27.833 | 38.889 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 103.937 | 151.016 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2486 | 3817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3587 | 3685 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3353 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2486 | 3817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3587 | 3685 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3353 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 585 | 979 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| NVIDIA GeForce 940MX | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Maxwell | Maxwell |
| Codename | GM108 | GM107 |
| Startdatum | 28 June 2016 | 12 March 2014 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 1071 | 896 |
| Typ | Laptop | Laptop |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 993 MHz | |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 954 MHz | |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 762.6 gflops | 1,155 gflops |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Leitungssysteme | 384 | 640 |
| Texturfüllrate | 23.83 GTexel / s | 36.08 GTexel / s |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 23 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 1,870 million | 1,870 million |
| CUDA-Kerne | 640 | |
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 |
||
| Busunterstützung | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Laptop-Größe | medium sized | medium sized |
| Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Speicherbandbreite | 40.1 GB / s | 80.0 GB / s |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 5012 MHz | |
| Speichertyp | DDR3, GDDR5 | DDR3, GDDR5 |
| Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | 0 |
| Standard-Speicherkonfiguration | DDR3 or GDDR5 | |
Technologien |
||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| Direct Compute | ||
| FXAA | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| SLI | ||
| TXAA | ||

