AMD FirePro W2100 versus NVIDIA GeForce 830M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD FirePro W2100 and NVIDIA GeForce 830M 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro W2100
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 5 mois plus tard
- Environ 25% de pipelines plus haut: 320 versus 256
- 2.3x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 315 versus 137
- Environ 85% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 289.646 versus 156.544
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 19.794 versus 17.81
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 12 August 2014 versus 12 March 2014 |
| Pipelines | 320 versus 256 |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 315 versus 137 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 289.646 versus 156.544 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.794 versus 17.81 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce 830M
- Environ 72% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1082 MHz versus 630 MHz
- Environ 69% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1150 MHz versus 680 MHz
- Environ 35% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 18.4 GTexel / s versus 13.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 35% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 588.8 gflops versus 435.2 gflops
- 12.1x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 33 Watt versus 400 Watt
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1006 versus 859
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 4213 versus 3710
- Environ 62% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 16.955 versus 10.438
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.013 versus 0.991
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 67.443 versus 50.338
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1729 versus 1494
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3589 versus 2329
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1729 versus 1494
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3589 versus 2329
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1082 MHz versus 630 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz versus 680 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.4 GTexel / s versus 13.6 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 588.8 gflops versus 435.2 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt versus 400 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1006 versus 859 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4213 versus 3710 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 16.955 versus 10.438 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.013 versus 0.991 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 67.443 versus 50.338 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1729 versus 1494 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3589 versus 2329 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 versus 3346 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1729 versus 1494 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3589 versus 2329 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 versus 3346 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD FirePro W2100
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 830M
| 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 W2100 | NVIDIA GeForce 830M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 859 | 1006 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 315 | 137 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3710 | 4213 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.438 | 16.955 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 289.646 | 156.544 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.991 | 1.013 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.794 | 17.81 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 50.338 | 67.443 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1494 | 1729 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2329 | 3589 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 | 3352 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1494 | 1729 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2329 | 3589 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 | 3352 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1058 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD FirePro W2100 | NVIDIA GeForce 830M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | Oland | GM108 |
| Date de sortie | 12 August 2014 | 12 March 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1212 | 1213 |
| Genre | Workstation | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 680 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 630 MHz | 1082 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 435.2 gflops | 588.8 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 320 | 256 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 13.6 GTexel / s | 18.4 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 400 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Compte DisplayPort | 2 | |
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
| Facteur de forme | Low Profile / Half Length | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | 14.4 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | n / a | DDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| Powerplay | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD FirePro W2100 avec des autres
AMDFirePro W2100 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K2000
AMDFirePro W2100 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 745A
AMDFirePro W2100 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 830M
AMDFirePro W2100 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 940M
AMDFirePro W2100 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 930M
AMDFirePro W2100 vs
IntelHD Graphics P530
