AMD Radeon E9550 MXM vs NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon E9550 MXM and NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: 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), PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon E9550 MXM
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- Around 20% higher core clock speed: 1120 MHz vs 930 MHz
- Around 7% higher boost clock speed: 1266 MHz vs 1180 MHz
- Around 21% higher texture fill rate: 182.3 GTexel / s vs 151.0 GTexel / s
- Around 13% higher pipelines: 2304 vs 2048
- Around 21% better floating-point performance: 5,834 gflops vs 4,833 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 2.4x lower typical power consumption: 95 Watt vs 225 Watt
- 8x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 1 GB
Launch date | 27 September 2016 vs 30 August 2015 |
Core clock speed | 1120 MHz vs 930 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1266 MHz vs 1180 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 182.3 GTexel / s vs 151.0 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 2304 vs 2048 |
Floating-point performance | 5,834 gflops vs 4,833 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95 Watt vs 225 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 1 GB |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6674 vs 6622
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3714 vs 3597
- Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 3208
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6674 vs 6622
- Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3714 vs 3597
- Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 3208
Specifications (specs) | |
Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz vs 5000 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6674 vs 6622 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 vs 3597 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3208 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6674 vs 6622 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 vs 3597 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3208 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon E9550 MXM
GPU 2: NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q
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 | AMD Radeon E9550 MXM | NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q |
---|---|---|
Geekbench - OpenCL | 36624 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 112.64 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.586 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 9.473 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 96.618 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 507.291 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6622 | 6674 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3597 | 3714 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3208 | 3358 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6622 | 6674 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3597 | 3714 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3208 | 3358 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3695 | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 181 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon E9550 MXM | NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |
Code name | Ellesmere | GM204 |
Launch date | 27 September 2016 | 30 August 2015 |
Place in performance rating | 515 | 512 |
Type | Desktop | Workstation |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1266 MHz | 1180 MHz |
Core clock speed | 1120 MHz | 930 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 5,834 gflops | 4,833 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 2304 | 2048 |
Texture fill rate | 182.3 GTexel / s | 151.0 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95 Watt | 225 Watt |
Transistor count | 5,700 million | 5,200 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
Length | 267 mm | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12.0 (12_1) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB / s | 160.4 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | 5012 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |