AMD FirePro W2100 versus NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD FirePro W2100 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M 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 1 ans 10 mois plus tard
- 3.3x plus de pipelines: 320 versus 96
- Environ 81% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 435.2 gflops versus 240.0 gflops
- Environ 79% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 859 versus 479
- 2.2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 315 versus 141
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 3723 versus 2229
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1494 versus 999
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3346 versus 3257
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1494 versus 999
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3346 versus 3257
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 12 August 2014 versus 1 October 2012 |
Pipelines | 320 versus 96 |
Performance á point flottant | 435.2 gflops versus 240.0 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 859 versus 479 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 315 versus 141 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3723 versus 2229 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1494 versus 999 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 versus 3257 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1494 versus 999 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 versus 3257 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M
- 26.7x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 400 Watt
Caractéristiques | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 400 Watt |
Référence | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2333 versus 2329 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2333 versus 2329 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD FirePro W2100
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
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 GT 625M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 859 | 479 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 315 | 141 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3723 | 2229 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 10.438 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 289.646 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.991 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.794 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 50.338 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1494 | 999 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2329 | 2333 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 | 3257 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1494 | 999 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2329 | 2333 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 | 3257 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1058 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD FirePro W2100 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi 2.0 |
Nom de code | Oland | GF117 |
Date de sortie | 12 August 2014 | 1 October 2012 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1210 | 1213 |
Genre | Workstation | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 680 MHz | |
Vitesse du noyau | 630 MHz | |
Performance á point flottant | 435.2 gflops | 240.0 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 320 | 96 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 13.6 GTexel / s | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 400 Watt | 15 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 585 million |
Noyaux CUDA | 96 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
Compte DisplayPort | 2 | |
Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Résolution VGA maximale | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0 |
Facteur de forme | Low Profile / Half Length | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12 API |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 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 | ||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
CUDA | ||
DirectCompute | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
Optimus |