AMD Radeon HD 8750M versus NVIDIA Quadro 4000M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon HD 8750M and NVIDIA Quadro 4000M 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon HD 8750M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 0 mois plus tard
- Environ 31% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 620 MHz versus 475 MHz
- Environ 14% de pipelines plus haut: 384 versus 336
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- Environ 60% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 4000 MHz versus 2500 MHz
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5862 versus 5212
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1734 versus 1413
- 2.6x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2221 versus 865
- 2.7x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3351 versus 1254
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1734 versus 1413
- 2.6x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2221 versus 865
- 2.7x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3351 versus 1254
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 26 February 2013 versus 22 February 2011 |
Vitesse du noyau | 620 MHz versus 475 MHz |
Pipelines | 384 versus 336 |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz versus 2500 MHz |
Référence | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5862 versus 5212 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1734 versus 1413 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2221 versus 865 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3351 versus 1254 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1734 versus 1413 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2221 versus 865 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3351 versus 1254 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro 4000M
- Environ 43% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 26.6 GTexel / s versus 18.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 7% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 638.4 gflops versus 595.2 gflops
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1270 versus 1012
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 265 versus 203
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 21.42 versus 8.274
- 2.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 738.724 versus 271.177
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.068 versus 1.505
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 33.126 versus 24.834
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 81.823 versus 70.596
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 26.6 GTexel / s versus 18.6 GTexel / s |
Performance á point flottant | 638.4 gflops versus 595.2 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1270 versus 1012 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 265 versus 203 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 21.42 versus 8.274 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 738.724 versus 271.177 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.068 versus 1.505 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 33.126 versus 24.834 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 81.823 versus 70.596 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon HD 8750M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 4000M
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 8750M | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1012 | 1270 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 203 | 265 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5862 | 5212 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.274 | 21.42 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 271.177 | 738.724 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.505 | 2.068 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 24.834 | 33.126 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 70.596 | 81.823 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1734 | 1413 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2221 | 865 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3351 | 1254 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1734 | 1413 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2221 | 865 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3351 | 1254 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon HD 8750M | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |
Nom de code | Mars | GF104 |
Conception | AMD Radeon HD 8000M Series | |
Date de sortie | 26 February 2013 | 22 February 2011 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1298 | 1300 |
Genre | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $449 | |
Prix maintenant | $111.99 | |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 19.30 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 775 MHz | |
Unités de Compute | 6 | |
Vitesse du noyau | 620 MHz | 475 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 595.2 gflops | 638.4 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 336 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.6 GTexel / s | 26.6 GTexel / s |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 1,950 million |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 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 API |
||
DirectX | 11 | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 64 GB / s | 80.0 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz | 2500 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |