AMD Radeon E9550 MXM versus AMD Radeon R9 M295X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon E9550 MXM and AMD Radeon R9 M295X 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: 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 1 ans 10 mois plus tard
- Environ 55% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1120 MHz versus 723 MHz
- Environ 97% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 182.3 GTexel / s versus 92.54 GTexel / s
- Environ 13% de pipelines plus haut: 2304 versus 2048
- Environ 97% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 5,834 gflops versus 2,961 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 2.6x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 95 Watt versus 250 Watt
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 36624 versus 26840
- Environ 71% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 112.64 versus 65.777
- Environ 80% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1474.586 versus 820.138
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 9.473 versus 7.142
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 96.618 versus 68.754
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 507.291 versus 386.418
- Environ 76% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3597 versus 2045
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3208 versus 3144
- Environ 76% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3597 versus 2045
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3208 versus 3144
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 27 September 2016 versus 23 November 2014 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1120 MHz versus 723 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 182.3 GTexel / s versus 92.54 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2304 versus 2048 |
| Performance á point flottant | 5,834 gflops versus 2,961 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95 Watt versus 250 Watt |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 36624 versus 26840 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 112.64 versus 65.777 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.586 versus 820.138 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 9.473 versus 7.142 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 96.618 versus 68.754 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 507.291 versus 386.418 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3597 versus 2045 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3208 versus 3144 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3597 versus 2045 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3208 versus 3144 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon E9550 MXM
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M295X
| 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 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Nom | AMD Radeon E9550 MXM | AMD Radeon R9 M295X |
|---|---|---|
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 36624 | 26840 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 112.64 | 65.777 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.586 | 820.138 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 9.473 | 7.142 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 96.618 | 68.754 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 507.291 | 386.418 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6622 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3597 | 2045 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3208 | 3144 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6622 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3597 | 2045 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3208 | 3144 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5150 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 832 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon E9550 MXM | AMD Radeon R9 M295X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 3.0 |
| Nom de code | Ellesmere | Amethyst |
| Date de sortie | 27 September 2016 | 23 November 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 495 | 496 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1266 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1120 MHz | 723 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 5,834 gflops | 2,961 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 2304 | 2048 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 182.3 GTexel / s | 92.54 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95 Watt | 250 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) | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | Not Listed |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| Mantle | ||
| OpenCL | Not Listed | |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 8 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 160.0 GB / s | 160.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5000 MHz | |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | Not Listed |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| DualGraphics | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Graphiques changeables | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon E9550 MXM avec des autres
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
ATIRadeon X700 SE
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
ATIFireGL V7200
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
AMDRadeon R9 M295X
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
NVIDIAQuadro M3000M
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
AMDRadeon Pro WX 4130 Mobile
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
AMDRadeon Pro W6800X Duo
