AMD FirePro M4000 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD FirePro M4000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire, Technologies. 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 3 mois plus tard
- Environ 9% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 675 MHz versus 620 MHz
- Environ 33% de pipelines plus haut: 512 versus 384
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- 3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 33 Watt versus 100 Watt
- 2.7x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 4000 MHz versus 1500 MHz
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 412 versus 313
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 79.304 versus 59.007
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 27 June 2012 versus 22 March 2012 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 675 MHz versus 620 MHz |
| Pipelines | 512 versus 384 |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt versus 100 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz versus 1500 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 412 versus 313 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 79.304 versus 59.007 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 versus 3347 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 versus 3347 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M
- Environ 84% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 39.7 billion / sec versus 21.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 38% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 952.3 gflops versus 691.2 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 2 GB versus 1 GB
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1929 versus 1604
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 6362 versus 5495
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 22.12 versus 15.659
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 664.78 versus 424.37
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.003 versus 1.67
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 33.983 versus 30.072
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2649 versus 2189
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3690 versus 3539
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2649 versus 2189
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3690 versus 3539
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 39.7 billion / sec versus 21.6 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 952.3 gflops versus 691.2 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1929 versus 1604 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6362 versus 5495 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.12 versus 15.659 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 664.78 versus 424.37 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.003 versus 1.67 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 33.983 versus 30.072 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2649 versus 2189 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3690 versus 3539 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2649 versus 2189 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3690 versus 3539 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD FirePro M4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M
| 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 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1604 | 1929 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 412 | 313 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5495 | 6362 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 15.659 | 22.12 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 424.37 | 664.78 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.67 | 2.003 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.072 | 33.983 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 79.304 | 59.007 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2189 | 2649 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3539 | 3690 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3347 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2189 | 2649 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3539 | 3690 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3347 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD FirePro M4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi 2.0 |
| Nom de code | Chelsea | GF114 |
| Date de sortie | 27 June 2012 | 22 March 2012 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 945 | 946 |
| Genre | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 675 MHz | 620 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 691.2 gflops | 952.3 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 512 | 384 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 21.6 GTexel / s | 39.7 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,500 million | 1,950 million |
| Noyaux CUDA | 384 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| StereoOutput3D | ||
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Résolution VGA maximale | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | n / a | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Facteur de forme | MXM-A | |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | large |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
| Options SLI | 2-way | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12 API |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 72 GB / s | 96.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| FXAA | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD FirePro M4000 avec des autres
AMDFirePro M4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce4 Ti 4800 SE
AMDFirePro M4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce FX Go5600
AMDFirePro M4000 vs
AMDFirePro V4900
AMDFirePro M4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 675M
AMDFirePro M4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 720A
AMDFirePro M4000 vs
AMDRadeon Vega 10
