AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M 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: 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), PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 6 mois plus tard
- Environ 19% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1090 MHz versus 914 MHz
- Environ 7% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1200 MHz versus 1124 MHz
- Environ 28% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 57.6 GTexel / s versus 44.96 GTexel / s
- Environ 40% de pipelines plus haut: 896 versus 640
- Environ 49% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,150 gflops versus 1,439 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 2.8x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 7000 MHz versus 1000 or 2500 MHz
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 44.281 versus 42.396
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 785.276 versus 373.644
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.951 versus 2.54
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 65.944 versus 39.412
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 196.307 versus 139.158
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5269 versus 4148
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5269 versus 4148
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 27 September 2016 versus 13 March 2015 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1090 MHz versus 914 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1200 MHz versus 1124 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 57.6 GTexel / s versus 44.96 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 896 versus 640 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,150 gflops versus 1,439 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7000 MHz versus 1000 or 2500 MHz |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 44.281 versus 42.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 785.276 versus 373.644 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.951 versus 2.54 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.944 versus 39.412 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 196.307 versus 139.158 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5269 versus 4148 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5269 versus 4148 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
- Environ 7% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 80 Watt
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 versus 2344
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 versus 2344
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 80 Watt |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 versus 2344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3357 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 versus 2344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3357 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M
| 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 E9260 PCIe | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M |
|---|---|---|
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 44.281 | 42.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 785.276 | 373.644 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.951 | 2.54 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.944 | 39.412 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 196.307 | 139.158 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5269 | 4148 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2344 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5269 | 4148 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2344 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3358 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2577 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 217 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9744 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3350 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | Baffin | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 27 September 2016 | 13 March 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 796 | 797 |
| Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1200 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1090 MHz | 914 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,150 gflops | 1,439 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 896 | 640 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 57.6 GTexel / s | 44.96 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 80 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,000 million | 1,870 million |
| Noyaux CUDA | 640 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Soutien de DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) | 1 | |
| HDMI | ||
| Soutien de l’écran analog VGA | 1 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 112.0 GB / s | 32 or 80 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7000 MHz | 1000 or 2500 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | DDR3 or GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe avec des autres
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
ATIMobility Radeon X1700
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 560 Ti
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
NVIDIAQuadro K1200
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 950M
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
AMDRadeon RX Vega 11
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
AMDRadeon RX 640
