AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 MxGPU versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 MxGPU and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M 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 Instinct MI25 MxGPU
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 5 mois plus tard
- Environ 48% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1400 MHz versus 944 MHz
- Environ 58% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1500 MHz versus 950 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4654 versus 3825
- Environ 61% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 23264 versus 14467
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 102.628 versus 67.59
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1762.559 versus 720.592
- Environ 86% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 7.26 versus 3.903
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 86.313 versus 57.947
- 2.8x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 617.099 versus 223.296
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 27 June 2017 versus 9 January 2015 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1400 MHz versus 944 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1500 MHz versus 950 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4654 versus 3825 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 23264 versus 14467 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 102.628 versus 67.59 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1762.559 versus 720.592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.26 versus 3.903 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 86.313 versus 57.947 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 617.099 versus 223.296 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
- 6x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 300 Watt
- Environ 47% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 2500 MHz versus 1704 MHz
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 347 versus 338
- 3.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5783 versus 1715
- 2.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2566 versus 1177
- Environ 94% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3337 versus 1724
- 3.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5783 versus 1715
- 2.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2566 versus 1177
- Environ 94% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3337 versus 1724
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 300 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2500 MHz versus 1704 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 347 versus 338 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5783 versus 1715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2566 versus 1177 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3337 versus 1724 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5783 versus 1715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2566 versus 1177 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3337 versus 1724 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 MxGPU
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
| 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 Instinct MI25 MxGPU | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4654 | 3825 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 338 | 347 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 23264 | 14467 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 102.628 | 67.59 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1762.559 | 720.592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.26 | 3.903 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 86.313 | 57.947 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 617.099 | 223.296 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1715 | 5783 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1177 | 2566 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1724 | 3337 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1715 | 5783 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1177 | 2566 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1724 | 3337 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1831 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 MxGPU | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Nom de code | Vega 10 | GM204 |
| Date de sortie | 27 June 2017 | 9 January 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 682 | 684 |
| Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1500 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1400 MHz | 944 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 300 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 12,500 million | 5,200 million |
| Noyaux CUDA | 1024 | |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,355 gflops | |
| Pipelines | 1024 | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 73.6 GTexel / s | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Soutien de DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) | 1 | |
| Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Soutien de l’écran analog VGA | 1 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Longeur | 267 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 2x 8-pin | None |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
| Options SLI | 1 | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1704 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 80 GB / s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 MxGPU avec des autres
AMDRadeon Instinct MI25 MxGPU vs
ATIFireGL V5100
AMDRadeon Instinct MI25 MxGPU vs
AMDFirePro W5170M
AMDRadeon Instinct MI25 MxGPU vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 965M
AMDRadeon Instinct MI25 MxGPU vs
AMDRadeon Pro 455
AMDRadeon Instinct MI25 MxGPU vs
IntelIris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)
AMDRadeon Instinct MI25 MxGPU vs
IntelArc Pro A40
