AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe versus NVIDIA Quadro M1000M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe and NVIDIA Quadro M1000M 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 1 mois plus tard
- Environ 10% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1090 MHz versus 993 MHz
- Environ 12% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1200 MHz versus 1072 MHz
- Environ 81% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 57.6 GTexel / s versus 31.78 GTexel / s
- Environ 75% de pipelines plus haut: 896 versus 512
- 2.1x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,150 gflops versus 1,017 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 2048x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB / 4 GB
- Environ 40% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 7000 MHz versus 5012 MHz
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 44.281 versus 38.33
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 785.276 versus 721.18
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.951 versus 3.056
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 65.944 versus 42.938
- Environ 42% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 196.307 versus 137.786
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5269 versus 4196
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5269 versus 4196
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 27 September 2016 versus 18 August 2015 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1090 MHz versus 993 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1200 MHz versus 1072 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 57.6 GTexel / s versus 31.78 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 896 versus 512 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,150 gflops versus 1,017 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB / 4 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7000 MHz versus 5012 MHz |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 44.281 versus 38.33 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 785.276 versus 721.18 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.951 versus 3.056 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.944 versus 42.938 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 196.307 versus 137.786 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5269 versus 4196 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5269 versus 4196 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro M1000M
- 2x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 40 Watt versus 80 Watt
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3716 versus 2344
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3716 versus 2344
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt versus 80 Watt |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3716 versus 2344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3357 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3716 versus 2344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3357 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro M1000M
| 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 Quadro M1000M |
|---|---|---|
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 44.281 | 38.33 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 785.276 | 721.18 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.951 | 3.056 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.944 | 42.938 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 196.307 | 137.786 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5269 | 4196 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2344 | 3716 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5269 | 4196 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2344 | 3716 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3358 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2847 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 307 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 8849 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1002 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe | NVIDIA Quadro M1000M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | Baffin | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 27 September 2016 | 18 August 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 850 | 851 |
| Genre | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $200.89 | |
| Prix maintenant | $203.37 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 16.10 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1200 MHz | 1072 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1090 MHz | 993 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,150 gflops | 1,017 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 896 | 512 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 57.6 GTexel / s | 31.78 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 80 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,000 million | 1,870 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB / 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 112.0 GB / s | 80 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7000 MHz | 5012 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe avec des autres
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
ATIMobility Radeon X600
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
ATIRadeon X300
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
NVIDIAQuadro K4000M
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
AMDRadeon HD 8650D IGP
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
NVIDIAQuadro M1000M
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
AMDRadeon Pro WX 3200
