NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA GeForce 940MX und NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M 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 1 Jahr(e) 3 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 4% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:954 MHz vs 914 MHz
- 3.3x geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 23 Watt vs 75 Watt
- 2x mehr Speichertaktfrequenz: 5012 MHz vs 1000 or 2500 MHz
| Startdatum | 28 June 2016 vs 13 March 2015 |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 954 MHz vs 914 MHz |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 23 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 5012 MHz vs 1000 or 2500 MHz |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
- Etwa 13% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1124 MHz vs 993 MHz
- Etwa 89% höhere Texturfüllrate: 44.96 GTexel / s vs 23.83 GTexel / s
- Etwa 67% höhere Leitungssysteme: 640 vs 384
- Etwa 89% bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 1,439 gflops vs 762.6 gflops
- Etwa 70% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2577 vs 1516
- Etwa 26% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 217 vs 172
- Etwa 54% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 9744 vs 6325
- Etwa 47% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 42.396 vs 28.91
- Etwa 19% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 373.644 vs 312.94
- Etwa 39% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.54 vs 1.83
- Etwa 42% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 39.412 vs 27.833
- Etwa 34% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 139.158 vs 103.937
- Etwa 67% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4148 vs 2486
- Etwa 4% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 vs 3587
- Etwa 67% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4148 vs 2486
- Etwa 4% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 vs 3587
- 5.7x bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3350 vs 585
| Spezifikationen | |
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1124 MHz vs 993 MHz |
| Texturfüllrate | 44.96 GTexel / s vs 23.83 GTexel / s |
| Leitungssysteme | 640 vs 384 |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 1,439 gflops vs 762.6 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2577 vs 1516 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 217 vs 172 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9744 vs 6325 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 42.396 vs 28.91 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 373.644 vs 312.94 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.54 vs 1.83 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 39.412 vs 27.833 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 139.158 vs 103.937 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4148 vs 2486 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 3587 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3357 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4148 vs 2486 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 3587 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3357 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3350 vs 585 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 940MX
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
| 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 950M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1516 | 2577 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 172 | 217 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6325 | 9744 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 28.91 | 42.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 312.94 | 373.644 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.83 | 2.54 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 27.833 | 39.412 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 103.937 | 139.158 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2486 | 4148 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3587 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2486 | 4148 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3587 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 585 | 3350 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| NVIDIA GeForce 940MX | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur | Maxwell | Maxwell |
| Codename | GM108 | GM107 |
| Startdatum | 28 June 2016 | 13 March 2015 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 1071 | 797 |
| Typ | Laptop | Laptop |
Technische Info |
||
| Boost-Taktfrequenz | 993 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Kerntaktfrequenz | 954 MHz | 914 MHz |
| Gleitkomma-Leistung | 762.6 gflops | 1,439 gflops |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Leitungssysteme | 384 | 640 |
| Texturfüllrate | 23.83 GTexel / s | 44.96 GTexel / s |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 23 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Anzahl der Transistoren | 1,870 million | 1,870 million |
| CUDA-Kerne | 640 | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
| Display-Anschlüsse | No outputs | No outputs |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) Unterstützung | 1 | |
| HDMI | ||
| VGA аnalog Display-Unterstützung | 1 | |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
| Busunterstützung | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| 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 |
Speicher |
||
| Maximale RAM-Belastung | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Speicherbandbreite | 40.1 GB / s | 32 or 80 GB / s |
| Breite des Speicherbusses | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Speichertaktfrequenz | 5012 MHz | 1000 or 2500 MHz |
| Speichertyp | DDR3, GDDR5 | DDR3 or GDDR5 |
| Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | 0 |
Technologien |
||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| SLI | ||

