AMD Radeon HD 8670M versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon HD 8670M 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 8670M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 8 mois plus tard
- 2x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 192
- Environ 6% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 633.6 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 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 87% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 488 versus 261
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5532 versus 4919
- Environ 62% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 71.696 versus 44.123
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 1 March 2013 versus 30 May 2011 |
Pipelines | 384 versus 192 |
Performance á point flottant | 633.6 gflops versus 595.2 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1536 MB |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz versus 1250 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 488 versus 261 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5532 versus 4919 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 71.696 versus 44.123 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M
- Environ 25% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 24.8 billion / sec versus 19.8 GTexel / s
- 2.4x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1261 versus 520
- Environ 94% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 13.598 versus 7.005
- 2.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 404.618 versus 144.131
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.227 versus 0.952
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 25.333 versus 17.551
- Environ 79% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1857 versus 1039
- Environ 84% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3275 versus 1783
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3341 versus 2270
- Environ 79% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1857 versus 1039
- Environ 84% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3275 versus 1783
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3341 versus 2270
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 24.8 billion / sec versus 19.8 GTexel / s |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1261 versus 520 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.598 versus 7.005 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 404.618 versus 144.131 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.227 versus 0.952 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 25.333 versus 17.551 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1857 versus 1039 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3275 versus 1783 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3341 versus 2270 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1857 versus 1039 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3275 versus 1783 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3341 versus 2270 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon HD 8670M
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 8670M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 520 | 1261 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 488 | 261 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5532 | 4919 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.005 | 13.598 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 144.131 | 404.618 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.952 | 1.227 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 17.551 | 25.333 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 71.696 | 44.123 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1039 | 1857 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1783 | 3275 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2270 | 3341 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1039 | 1857 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1783 | 3275 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2270 | 3341 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon HD 8670M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi 2.0 |
Nom de code | Mars | GF116 |
Conception | AMD Radeon HD 8000M Series | |
Date de sortie | 1 March 2013 | 30 May 2011 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1171 | 1173 |
Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 775 MHz | |
Unités de Compute | 6 | |
Vitesse du noyau | 775 MHz | 775 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 633.6 gflops | 595.2 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 192 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 19.8 GTexel / s | 24.8 billion / sec |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 1,170 million |
Noyaux CUDA | 192 | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | large |
Soutien de bus | PCI-E 2.0 | |
Options SLI | 2-way | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 11 | 12 API |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 1536 MB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 14.4 GB / s | |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 1250 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
3D Gaming | ||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
Optimus |