NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 und NVIDIA GeForce 840M 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 GTX 970
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 6 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 2% höhere Kerntaktfrequenz:1050 MHz vs 1029 MHz
- Etwa 5% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1178 MHz vs 1124 MHz
- 6.1x mehr Texturfüllrate: 109 billion / sec vs 17.98 GTexel / s
- 4.3x mehr Leitungssysteme: 1664 vs 384
- 4.5x bessere Gleitkomma-Leistung: 3,920 gflops vs 863.2 gflops
- 8.8x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 9640 vs 1096
- 5.1x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 766 vs 151
- 4.9x bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 28498 vs 5771
- 4.6x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 105.107 vs 22.848
- 7.5x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1225.96 vs 162.594
- 7.1x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 8.737 vs 1.237
- Etwa 69% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.714 vs 21.15
- 5.1x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 490.688 vs 95.545
- 5.5x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 11499 vs 2085
- Etwa 35% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3698 vs 2736
- Etwa 5% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3340 vs 3191
- 5.5x bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 11499 vs 2085
- Etwa 35% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3698 vs 2736
- Etwa 5% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3340 vs 3191
Spezifikationen | |
Startdatum | 19 September 2014 vs 12 March 2014 |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 1050 MHz vs 1029 MHz |
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1178 MHz vs 1124 MHz |
Texturfüllrate | 109 billion / sec vs 17.98 GTexel / s |
Leitungssysteme | 1664 vs 384 |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 3,920 gflops vs 863.2 gflops |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 9640 vs 1096 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 766 vs 151 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 28498 vs 5771 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 105.107 vs 22.848 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1225.96 vs 162.594 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.737 vs 1.237 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.714 vs 21.15 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 490.688 vs 95.545 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11499 vs 2085 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3698 vs 2736 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3340 vs 3191 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11499 vs 2085 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3698 vs 2736 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3340 vs 3191 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der NVIDIA GeForce 840M
- 4.5x geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 33 Watt vs 148 Watt
- 286x mehr Speichertaktfrequenz: 2002 MHz vs 7.0 GB/s
- Etwa 36% bessere Leistung in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 503 vs 369
Spezifikationen | |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 33 Watt vs 148 Watt |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 2002 MHz vs 7.0 GB/s |
Benchmarks | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 503 vs 369 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 840M
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 GTX 970 | NVIDIA GeForce 840M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 9640 | 1096 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 766 | 151 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 28498 | 5771 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 105.107 | 22.848 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1225.96 | 162.594 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 8.737 | 1.237 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.714 | 21.15 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 490.688 | 95.545 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 11499 | 2085 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3698 | 2736 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3340 | 3191 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 11499 | 2085 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3698 | 2736 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3340 | 3191 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 369 | 503 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 | NVIDIA GeForce 840M | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Maxwell 2.0 | Maxwell |
Codename | GM204 | GM108 |
Startdatum | 19 September 2014 | 12 March 2014 |
Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $329 | |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 371 | 1235 |
Jetzt kaufen | $407.76 | |
Typ | Desktop | Laptop |
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 28.59 | |
Technische Info |
||
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1178 MHz | 1124 MHz |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 1050 MHz | 1029 MHz |
CUDA-Kerne | 1664 | |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 3,920 gflops | 863.2 gflops |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Maximale GPU-Temperatur | 98 °C | |
Leitungssysteme | 1664 | 384 |
Texturfüllrate | 109 billion / sec | 17.98 GTexel / s |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 148 Watt | 33 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 5,200 million | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Audioeingang für HDMI | Internal | |
Display-Anschlüsse | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |
G-SYNC-Unterstützung | ||
HDCP | ||
Maximale VGA-Auflösung | 2048x1536 | |
Multi-Monitor-Unterstützung | ||
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Busunterstützung | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
Höhe | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Länge | 10.5" (26.7 cm) | |
Empfohlene Systemleistung (PSU) | 500 Watt | |
SLI-Optionen | 4x | |
Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | 2x 6-pins | |
Laptop-Größe | medium sized | |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
Speicher |
||
Maximale RAM-Belastung | 4 GB | 4 GB |
Speicherbandbreite | 224 GB / s | 16.02 GB / s |
Breite des Speicherbusses | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 7.0 GB/s | 2002 MHz |
Speichertyp | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
Gemeinsamer Speicher | 0 | 0 |
Technologien |
||
3D Vision | ||
Adaptive Vertical Sync | ||
CUDA | ||
GameStream | ||
GameWorks | ||
GeForce Experience | ||
GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
GPU Boost | ||
SLI | ||
Surround | ||
Optimus |