AMD FirePro M4000 versus AMD FirePro V4900
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD FirePro M4000 and AMD FirePro V4900 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire. Analyse du performance de référence des cartes vidéo: 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro M4000
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 7 mois plus tard
- Environ 13% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 21.6 GTexel / s versus 19.2 GTexel / s
- Environ 7% de pipelines plus haut: 512 versus 480
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- 2.3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 33 Watt versus 75 Watt
- Environ 62% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1604 versus 988
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 412 versus 309
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 15.659 versus 6.303
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 424.37 versus 392.237
- 2.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.67 versus 0.597
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 30.072 versus 17.874
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 79.304 versus 72.818
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2189 versus 1747
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2189 versus 1747
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 27 June 2012 versus 1 November 2011 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 21.6 GTexel / s versus 19.2 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 512 versus 480 |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt versus 75 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1604 versus 988 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 412 versus 309 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 15.659 versus 6.303 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 424.37 versus 392.237 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.67 versus 0.597 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.072 versus 17.874 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 79.304 versus 72.818 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2189 versus 1747 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2189 versus 1747 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro V4900
- Environ 19% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 800 MHz versus 675 MHz
- Environ 11% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 768.0 gflops versus 691.2 gflops
- 2.3x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 12641 versus 5495
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3753 versus 3539
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 7745 versus 3357
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3753 versus 3539
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 7745 versus 3357
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 800 MHz versus 675 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 768.0 gflops versus 691.2 gflops |
Référence | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 12641 versus 5495 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3753 versus 3539 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 7745 versus 3357 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3753 versus 3539 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 7745 versus 3357 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD FirePro M4000
GPU 2: AMD FirePro V4900
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) |
|
|
Nom | AMD FirePro M4000 | AMD FirePro V4900 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1604 | 988 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 412 | 309 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5495 | 12641 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 15.659 | 6.303 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 424.37 | 392.237 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.67 | 0.597 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.072 | 17.874 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 79.304 | 72.818 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2189 | 1747 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3539 | 3753 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 7745 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2189 | 1747 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3539 | 3753 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 7745 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD FirePro M4000 | AMD FirePro V4900 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | TeraScale 2 |
Nom de code | Chelsea | Turks |
Date de sortie | 27 June 2012 | 1 November 2011 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 945 | 947 |
Genre | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse du noyau | 675 MHz | 800 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 691.2 gflops | 768.0 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 512 | 480 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 21.6 GTexel / s | 19.2 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | 75 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,500 million | 716 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
StereoOutput3D | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | n / a | |
Facteur de forme | MXM-A | |
Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Longeur | 163 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 1 GB | 1 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 72 GB / s | 64.0 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz | 4000 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 |