AMD Radeon HD 8570 OEM versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon HD 8570 OEM and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M 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: 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon HD 8570 OEM
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 7 mois plus tard
- 2x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 192
- Environ 1% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 599.0 gflops versus 595.2 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- Environ 50% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 75 Watt
- Environ 33% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 2 GB versus 1536 MB
- Environ 44% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 1800 MHz versus 1250 MHz
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 283 versus 264
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 6014 versus 4769
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.771 versus 13.598
- Environ 65% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 72.899 versus 44.123
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 8 January 2013 versus 30 May 2011 |
Pipelines | 384 versus 192 |
Performance á point flottant | 599.0 gflops versus 595.2 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 75 Watt |
Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1536 MB |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz versus 1250 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 283 versus 264 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 6014 versus 4769 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.771 versus 13.598 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 72.899 versus 44.123 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 versus 3341 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 versus 3341 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M
- Environ 6% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 775 MHz versus 730 MHz
- Environ 32% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 24.8 billion / sec versus 18.72 GTexel / s
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1268 versus 943
- Environ 42% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 404.618 versus 285.896
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.227 versus 1.219
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 25.333 versus 24.949
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1857 versus 1759
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3275 versus 2540
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1857 versus 1759
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3275 versus 2540
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 775 MHz versus 730 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 24.8 billion / sec versus 18.72 GTexel / s |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1268 versus 943 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 404.618 versus 285.896 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.227 versus 1.219 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 25.333 versus 24.949 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1857 versus 1759 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3275 versus 2540 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1857 versus 1759 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3275 versus 2540 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon HD 8570 OEM
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M
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 8570 OEM | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 943 | 1268 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 283 | 264 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 6014 | 4769 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.771 | 13.598 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 285.896 | 404.618 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.219 | 1.227 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 24.949 | 25.333 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 72.899 | 44.123 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1759 | 1857 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2540 | 3275 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 | 3341 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1759 | 1857 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2540 | 3275 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 | 3341 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon HD 8570 OEM | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi 2.0 |
Nom de code | Oland | GF116 |
Date de sortie | 8 January 2013 | 30 May 2011 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1155 | 1158 |
Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz | |
Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz | 775 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 599.0 gflops | 595.2 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 192 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.72 GTexel / s | 24.8 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 75 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 1,170 million |
Noyaux CUDA | 192 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Soutien de bus | PCI-E 2.0 | |
Taille du laptop | large | |
Options SLI | 2-way | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 | 12 API |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 1536 MB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 1250 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
3D Gaming | ||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
Optimus |