AMD Radeon E9550 MXM versus NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon E9550 MXM and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M 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 1 mois plus tard
- Environ 7% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1120 MHz versus 1050 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 182.3 GTexel / s versus 67.2 GTexel / s
- 2.3x plus de pipelines: 2304 versus 1,024
- 2.7x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 5,834 gflops versus 2,150 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 8 GB versus 4 GB
- 2.2x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 36624 versus 16641
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 112.64 versus 82.563
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1474.586 versus 1266.506
- Environ 93% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 9.473 versus 4.91
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 96.618 versus 70.779
- 2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 507.291 versus 252.607
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 27 September 2016 versus 18 August 2015 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1120 MHz versus 1050 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 182.3 GTexel / s versus 67.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2304 versus 1,024 |
| Performance á point flottant | 5,834 gflops versus 2,150 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 4 GB |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 36624 versus 16641 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 112.64 versus 82.563 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.586 versus 1266.506 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 9.473 versus 4.91 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 96.618 versus 70.779 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 507.291 versus 252.607 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
- Environ 27% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 95 Watt
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7779 versus 6622
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3720 versus 3597
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3360 versus 3208
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7779 versus 6622
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3720 versus 3597
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3360 versus 3208
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 95 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5012 MHz versus 5000 MHz |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7779 versus 6622 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3720 versus 3597 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3360 versus 3208 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7779 versus 6622 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3720 versus 3597 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3360 versus 3208 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon E9550 MXM
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
| 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) |
|
|
| Nom | AMD Radeon E9550 MXM | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M |
|---|---|---|
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 36624 | 16641 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 112.64 | 82.563 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.586 | 1266.506 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 9.473 | 4.91 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 96.618 | 70.779 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 507.291 | 252.607 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6622 | 7779 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3597 | 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3208 | 3360 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6622 | 7779 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3597 | 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3208 | 3360 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5594 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 413 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon E9550 MXM | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Nom de code | Ellesmere | GM204 |
| Date de sortie | 27 September 2016 | 18 August 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 502 | 504 |
| Genre | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1266 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1120 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 5,834 gflops | 2,150 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 2304 | 1,024 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 182.3 GTexel / s | 67.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 95 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 5,700 million | 5,200 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 160.0 GB / s | 160 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5000 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 E9550 MXM avec des autres
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
ATIRadeon X850 XT
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
ATIFireGL V3300
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
AMDRadeon HD 7690M
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
NVIDIAQuadro M3000M
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
AMDRadeon RX 470 (Laptop)
AMDRadeon E9550 MXM vs
AMDRadeon Pro W6800X Duo
