AMD Radeon HD 7570M versus NVIDIA Quadro 1000M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon HD 7570M and NVIDIA Quadro 1000M 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: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon HD 7570M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 7% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 12 GTexel / s versus 11.2 GTexel / s
- 4.2x plus de pipelines: 400 versus 96
- Environ 79% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 480.0 gflops versus 268.8 gflops
- 3.5x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 13 Watt versus 45 Watt
- Environ 78% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 3200 MHz versus 1800 MHz
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 10.489 versus 10.149
- Environ 80% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 42.722 versus 23.677
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 905 versus 894
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1797 versus 1633
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2352 versus 2327
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 905 versus 894
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1797 versus 1633
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2352 versus 2327
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 7 January 2012 versus 13 January 2011 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 12 GTexel / s versus 11.2 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 400 versus 96 |
Performance á point flottant | 480.0 gflops versus 268.8 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 13 Watt versus 45 Watt |
Vitesse de mémoire | 3200 MHz versus 1800 MHz |
Référence | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 10.489 versus 10.149 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 42.722 versus 23.677 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 905 versus 894 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1797 versus 1633 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2352 versus 2327 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 905 versus 894 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1797 versus 1633 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2352 versus 2327 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro 1000M
- Environ 40% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 700 MHz versus 500 MHz
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 2 GB versus 1 GB
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 567 versus 427
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 195 versus 190
- Environ 94% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 2113 versus 1091
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 5.218 versus 3.109
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 207.789 versus 199.164
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.52 versus 0.333
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 700 MHz versus 500 MHz |
Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 567 versus 427 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 195 versus 190 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 2113 versus 1091 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 5.218 versus 3.109 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 207.789 versus 199.164 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.52 versus 0.333 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon HD 7570M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 1000M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
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 HD 7570M | NVIDIA Quadro 1000M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 427 | 567 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 190 | 195 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 1091 | 2113 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 3.109 | 5.218 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 199.164 | 207.789 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.333 | 0.52 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 10.489 | 10.149 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 42.722 | 23.677 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 905 | 894 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1797 | 1633 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2352 | 2327 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 905 | 894 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1797 | 1633 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2352 | 2327 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon HD 7570M | NVIDIA Quadro 1000M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Fermi |
Nom de code | Thames | GF108 |
Date de sortie | 7 January 2012 | 13 January 2011 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1447 | 1449 |
Genre | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $174.95 | |
Prix maintenant | $99.95 | |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 8.91 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 650 MHz | |
Vitesse du noyau | 500 MHz | 700 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 480.0 gflops | 268.8 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 40 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 400 | 96 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 12 GTexel / s | 11.2 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 13 Watt | 45 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 716 million | 585 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | medium sized |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 1 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 25.6 GB / s | 28.8 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 3200 MHz | 1800 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 / DDR3 | DDR3 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |