AMD Radeon R9 M380 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 445M
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 M380 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 445M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M380
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- 4.5x more texture fill rate: 48 GTexel / s vs 10.6 billion / sec
- 5.3x more pipelines: 768 vs 144
- 4.5x better floating-point performance: 1,536 gflops vs 339.8 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- Around 33% higher maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 3 GB
- Around 20% higher memory clock speed: 1500 MHz vs 1250 MHz
- 3.4x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2774 vs 811
- 2.6x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 530 vs 203
- Around 2% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 12660 vs 12379
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 5 May 2015 vs 3 September 2010 |
Texture fill rate | 48 GTexel / s vs 10.6 billion / sec |
Pipelines | 768 vs 144 |
Floating-point performance | 1,536 gflops vs 339.8 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 3 GB |
Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz vs 1250 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2774 vs 811 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 530 vs 203 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 12660 vs 12379 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 445M
- Around 31% higher core clock speed: 1180 MHz vs 900 MHz
- 6.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3274 vs 536
- Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3350 vs 2855
- 6.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3274 vs 536
- Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3350 vs 2855
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1180 MHz vs 900 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3274 vs 536 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3350 vs 2855 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3274 vs 536 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3350 vs 2855 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 M380
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 445M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon R9 M380 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 445M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2774 | 811 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 530 | 203 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 12660 | 12379 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 34.701 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 546.907 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.618 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 48.878 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 194.051 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3688 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 536 | 3274 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2855 | 3350 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3688 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 536 | 3274 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2855 | 3350 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon R9 M380 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 445M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Fermi |
Code name | Strato | GF106 |
Design | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | |
Launch date | 5 May 2015 | 3 September 2010 |
Place in performance rating | 875 | 878 |
Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 1180 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 1,536 gflops | 339.8 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 768 | 144 |
Texture fill rate | 48 GTexel / s | 10.6 billion / sec |
Transistor count | 2,080 million | 1,170 million |
CUDA cores | 144 | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Eyefinity | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Laptop size | medium sized | large |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12 API |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.1 |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 96 GB / s | 60.0 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 bit | 192 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1250 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
DirectCompute 5.0 | ||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Switchable graphics | ||
TrueAudio | ||
ZeroCore | ||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
DirectCompute | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
Optimus | ||
SLI |