AMD Radeon 625 versus AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon 625 and AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon 625
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 0 mois plus tard
- 2.4x plus de vitesse du noyau: 730 MHz versus 300 MHz
- Environ 82% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 322.556 versus 176.928
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 32.22 versus 27.603
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 May 2019 versus 23 April 2018 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz versus 300 MHz |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 322.556 versus 176.928 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 32.22 versus 27.603 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient
- Environ 7% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1100 MHz versus 1024 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 43% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 35 Watt versus 50 Watt
- Environ 76% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1894 versus 1074
- Environ 71% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 355 versus 208
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 26.039 versus 18.876
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.666 versus 1.478
- Environ 92% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 135.437 versus 70.423
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2408 versus 2032
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3170 versus 2920
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3352 versus 3215
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2408 versus 2032
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3170 versus 2920
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3352 versus 3215
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1100 MHz versus 1024 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt versus 50 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1894 versus 1074 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 355 versus 208 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 26.039 versus 18.876 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.666 versus 1.478 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 135.437 versus 70.423 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2408 versus 2032 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3170 versus 2920 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 versus 3215 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2408 versus 2032 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3170 versus 2920 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 versus 3215 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon 625
GPU 2: AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| 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 Radeon 625 | AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1074 | 1894 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 208 | 355 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6501 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.876 | 26.039 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 322.556 | 176.928 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.478 | 1.666 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 32.22 | 27.603 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 70.423 | 135.437 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2032 | 2408 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2920 | 3170 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3215 | 3352 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2032 | 2408 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2920 | 3170 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3215 | 3352 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 862 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon 625 | AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 5.0 |
| Nom de code | Polaris 24 | Raven |
| Date de sortie | 13 May 2019 | 23 April 2018 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1122 | 931 |
| Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1024 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Unités de Compute | 6 | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 49.15 GFLOPS (1:16) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 786.4 GFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 384 | |
| Pixel fill rate | 8.192 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 24.58 GTexel/s | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4,940 million | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | IGP |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
| Largeur | IGP | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 14.40 GB/s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 900 MHz (1800 MHz effective) | |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon 625 avec des autres
AMDRadeon 625 vs
NVIDIAGeForce4 Ti 4200
AMDRadeon 625 vs
ATIRadeon 9700
AMDRadeon 625 vs
NVIDIAGeForce FX 5200
AMDRadeon 625 vs
AMDRadeon R5 310 OEM
AMDRadeon 625 vs
AMDRadeon R7 M465
AMDRadeon 625 vs
AMDRadeon RX Vega 11 Mobile
