AMD Radeon HD 8870M versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon HD 8870M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 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 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon HD 8870M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 10 mois plus tard
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 629 versus 462
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 38.126 versus 29.836
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 106.848 versus 97.861
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3702 versus 1849
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 versus 1673
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3702 versus 1849
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 versus 1673
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 1 April 2013 versus 3 May 2012 |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 629 versus 462 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 38.126 versus 29.836 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 106.848 versus 97.861 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3702 versus 1849 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 versus 1673 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3702 versus 1849 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 versus 1673 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690
- Environ 26% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 915 MHz versus 725 MHz
- Environ 41% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1019 MHz versus 725 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 234 billion / sec versus 31 GTexel / s
- 4.8x plus de pipelines: 2x 1536 versus 640
- 6.3x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2x 3,130 gflops versus 992.0 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 versus 2 GB
- Environ 34% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 6008 MHz versus 4500 MHz
- 3.4x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 5516 versus 1638
- Environ 92% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 16608 versus 8637
- Environ 92% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 46.352 versus 24.097
- 2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 930.114 versus 465.496
- Environ 65% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.656 versus 2.211
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 915 MHz versus 725 MHz |
Vitesse augmenté | 1019 MHz versus 725 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 234 billion / sec versus 31 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 2x 1536 versus 640 |
Performance á point flottant | 2x 3,130 gflops versus 992.0 gflops |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 versus 2 GB |
Vitesse de mémoire | 6008 MHz versus 4500 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5516 versus 1638 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 16608 versus 8637 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 46.352 versus 24.097 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 930.114 versus 465.496 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.656 versus 2.211 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon HD 8870M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690
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 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Nom | AMD Radeon HD 8870M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1638 | 5516 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 629 | 462 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8637 | 16608 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 24.097 | 46.352 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 465.496 | 930.114 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.211 | 3.656 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 38.126 | 29.836 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 106.848 | 97.861 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3702 | 1849 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 1673 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3702 | 1849 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 1673 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6875 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6875 | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon HD 8870M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |
Nom de code | Venus | GK104 |
Conception | AMD Radeon HD 8000M Series | |
Date de sortie | 1 April 2013 | 3 May 2012 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 744 | 746 |
Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $999 | |
Prix maintenant | $999 | |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 7.01 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 725 MHz | 1019 MHz |
Unités de Compute | 10 | |
Vitesse du noyau | 725 MHz | 915 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 992.0 gflops | 2x 3,130 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 640 | 2x 1536 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 31 GTexel / s | 234 billion / sec |
Compte de transistor | 1,500 million | 3,540 million |
Noyaux CUDA | 3072 | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 300 Watt | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 3x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort, Two Dual Link DVI-I. One Dual link DVI-D. One Mini... |
Contribution d’audio pour HDMI | Internal | |
Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Résolution VGA maximale | 2048x1536 | |
Soutien de plusiers moniteurs | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Taille du laptop | large | |
Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
Hauteur | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
Longeur | 11.0" (27.9 cm) | |
Options SLI | Quad | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | Two 8-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 11 | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.2 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 4 GB (4 GB per GPU) GDDR5 |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 72 GB / s | 384 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 512-bit (256-bit per GPU) |
Vitesse de mémoire | 4500 MHz | 6008 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
3D Gaming | ||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision Live | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
CUDA | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
FXAA | ||
GPU Boost | ||
SLI | ||
TXAA |