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 | 2851 | |
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 | 847 | 848 |
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 |