AMD Radeon E9550 MXM versus AMD FirePro S7150
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon E9550 MXM and AMD FirePro S7150 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: 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), PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon E9550 MXM
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 7 mois plus tard
- Environ 7% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1120 MHz versus 1050 MHz
- Environ 55% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 182.3 GTexel / s versus 117.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 29% de pipelines plus haut: 2304 versus 1792
- Environ 55% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 5,834 gflops versus 3,763 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 58% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 95 Watt versus 150 Watt
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 36624 versus 29623
- 4.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 112.64 versus 27.544
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1474.586 versus 570.969
- 13.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 9.473 versus 0.687
- 4.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 96.618 versus 23.637
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6622 versus 6147
- 5.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3208 versus 583
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6622 versus 6147
- 5.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3208 versus 583
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 27 September 2016 versus 1 February 2016 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1120 MHz versus 1050 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 182.3 GTexel / s versus 117.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2304 versus 1792 |
| Performance á point flottant | 5,834 gflops versus 3,763 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95 Watt versus 150 Watt |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 36624 versus 29623 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 112.64 versus 27.544 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.586 versus 570.969 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 9.473 versus 0.687 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 96.618 versus 23.637 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6622 versus 6147 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3208 versus 583 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6622 versus 6147 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3208 versus 583 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro S7150
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 4359 versus 3597
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 4359 versus 3597
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 4359 versus 3597 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 4359 versus 3597 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon E9550 MXM
GPU 2: AMD FirePro S7150
| 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) |
|
|
||||
| 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 E9550 MXM | AMD FirePro S7150 |
|---|---|---|
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 36624 | 29623 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 112.64 | 27.544 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.586 | 570.969 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 9.473 | 0.687 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 96.618 | 23.637 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 507.291 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6622 | 6147 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3597 | 4359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3208 | 583 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6622 | 6147 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3597 | 4359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3208 | 583 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2727 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 465 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon E9550 MXM | AMD FirePro S7150 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 3.0 |
| Nom de code | Ellesmere | Tonga |
| Date de sortie | 27 September 2016 | 1 February 2016 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 501 | 634 |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $2,399 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1266 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1120 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 5,834 gflops | 3,763 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 2304 | 1792 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 182.3 GTexel / s | 117.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 5,700 million | 5,000 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 1x 6-pin |
| Longeur | 241 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12.0 (12_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 160.0 GB / s | 160.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5000 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon E9550 MXM avec des autres
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
ATIFireGL V7300
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 550
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
NVIDIAQuadro NVS 510M
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9500M GE
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 740A
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
NVIDIAGeForce 720A
