AMD Radeon PRO WX 3100 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon PRO WX 3100 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 PRO WX 3100
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 5 mois plus tard
- Environ 28% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1219 MHz versus 950 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- 2.4x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 6000 MHz versus 2500 MHz
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 424 versus 336
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 864.134 versus 720.592
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3607 versus 2566
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3359 versus 3337
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3607 versus 2566
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3359 versus 3337
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 12 June 2017 versus 9 January 2015 |
Vitesse augmenté | 1219 MHz versus 950 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
Vitesse de mémoire | 6000 MHz versus 2500 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 424 versus 336 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 864.134 versus 720.592 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3607 versus 2566 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 versus 3337 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3607 versus 2566 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 versus 3337 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
- Environ 2% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 944 MHz versus 925 MHz
- Environ 89% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 73.6 GTexel / s versus 39.01 GTexel / s
- 2x plus de pipelines: 1024 versus 512
- Environ 89% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,355 gflops versus 1,248 gflops
- Environ 30% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 65 Watt
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3797 versus 2543
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 14288 versus 10513
- 2.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.59 versus 29.959
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.903 versus 2.893
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 57.947 versus 49.305
- Environ 83% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 223.296 versus 122.245
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5783 versus 4551
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5783 versus 4551
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 944 MHz versus 925 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 73.6 GTexel / s versus 39.01 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1024 versus 512 |
Performance á point flottant | 2,355 gflops versus 1,248 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 65 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3797 versus 2543 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 14288 versus 10513 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.59 versus 29.959 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.903 versus 2.893 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 57.947 versus 49.305 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 223.296 versus 122.245 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5783 versus 4551 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5783 versus 4551 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon PRO WX 3100
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 PRO WX 3100 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2543 | 3797 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 424 | 336 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 10513 | 14288 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 29.959 | 67.59 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 864.134 | 720.592 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.893 | 3.903 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 49.305 | 57.947 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 122.245 | 223.296 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4551 | 5783 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3607 | 2566 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 | 3337 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4551 | 5783 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3607 | 2566 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 | 3337 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1831 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon PRO WX 3100 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |
Nom de code | Lexa | GM204 |
Date de sortie | 12 June 2017 | 9 January 2015 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $199 | |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 728 | 731 |
Genre | Workstation | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1219 MHz | 950 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 925 MHz | 944 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 1,248 gflops | 2,355 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 512 | 1024 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 39.01 GTexel / s | 73.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 50 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 2,200 million | 5,200 million |
Noyaux CUDA | 1024 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 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 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Longeur | 145 mm | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
Taille du laptop | large | |
Options SLI | 1 | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12.0 (12_1) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 96 GB / s | 80 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 6000 MHz | 2500 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | 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 |