NVIDIA GeForce MX250 vs AMD Radeon Vega 11
Vergleichende Analyse von NVIDIA GeForce MX250 und AMD Radeon Vega 11 Videokarten für alle bekannten Merkmale in den folgenden Kategorien: Essenzielles, Technische Info, Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse, Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen, API-Unterstützung, Speicher. 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 MX250
- Grafikkarte ist neuer: Startdatum 1 Jahr(e) 0 Monat(e) später
- 3.1x mehr Kerntaktfrequenz: 937 MHz vs 300 MHz
- 3.5x geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 10 Watt vs 35 Watt
- Etwa 31% bessere Leistung in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2412 vs 1842
- Etwa 13% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 46.992 vs 41.582
- Etwa 44% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 535.24 vs 371.843
- Etwa 87% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4027 vs 2156
- Etwa 50% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3710 vs 2475
- Etwa 87% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4027 vs 2156
- Etwa 50% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3710 vs 2475
Spezifikationen | |
Startdatum | 21 February 2019 vs 13 February 2018 |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 937 MHz vs 300 MHz |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 10 Watt vs 35 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2412 vs 1842 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 46.992 vs 41.582 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 535.24 vs 371.843 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4027 vs 2156 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3710 vs 2475 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 vs 3343 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4027 vs 2156 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3710 vs 2475 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 vs 3343 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der AMD Radeon Vega 11
- Etwa 25% höhere Boost-Taktfrequenz: 1300 MHz vs 1038 MHz
- Etwa 83% höhere Leitungssysteme: 704 vs 384
- 2x bessere Leistung in PassMark - G2D Mark: 487 vs 240
- Etwa 43% bessere Leistung in Geekbench - OpenCL: 13226 vs 9236
- Etwa 20% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.156 vs 2.64
- Etwa 17% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 52.449 vs 44.7
- Etwa 75% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 248.838 vs 141.816
Spezifikationen | |
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1300 MHz vs 1038 MHz |
Leitungssysteme | 704 vs 384 |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 487 vs 240 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 13226 vs 9236 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.156 vs 2.64 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 52.449 vs 44.7 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 248.838 vs 141.816 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GPU 2: AMD Radeon Vega 11
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 MX250 | AMD Radeon Vega 11 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2412 | 1842 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 240 | 487 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 9236 | 13226 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 46.992 | 41.582 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 535.24 | 371.843 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.64 | 3.156 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 44.7 | 52.449 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 141.816 | 248.838 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4027 | 2156 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3710 | 2475 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3343 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4027 | 2156 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3710 | 2475 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3343 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 888 | 0 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
NVIDIA GeForce MX250 | AMD Radeon Vega 11 | |
---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
Architektur | Pascal | GCN 5.0 |
Codename | GP108B | Owl |
Startdatum | 21 February 2019 | 13 February 2018 |
Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 902 | 903 |
Typ | Laptop | Desktop |
Technische Info |
||
Boost-Taktfrequenz | 1038 MHz | 1300 MHz |
Kerntaktfrequenz | 937 MHz | 300 MHz |
Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 14 nm | 14 nm |
Leitungssysteme | 384 | 704 |
Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 10 Watt | 35 Watt |
Anzahl der Transistoren | 1,800 million | 4,940 million |
Gleitkomma-Leistung | 1,830 gflops | |
Texturfüllrate | 57.2 GTexel / s | |
Videoausgänge und Anschlüsse |
||
Display-Anschlüsse | No outputs | No outputs |
Kompatibilität, Abmessungen und Anforderungen |
||
Schnittstelle | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |
Zusätzliche Leistungssteckverbinder | None | None |
API-Unterstützung |
||
DirectX | 12.0 | |
OpenGL | 4.6 | |
Speicher |
||
Breite des Speicherbusses | 64 Bit | |
Speichertaktfrequenz | 6008 MHz | |
Speichertyp | GDDR5 | System Shared |