AMD Radeon Pro 450 versus NVIDIA Quadro M1000M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro 450 and NVIDIA Quadro M1000M 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 450
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 2 mois plus tard
- Environ 1% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 32 GTexel / s versus 31.78 GTexel / s
- Environ 25% de pipelines plus haut: 640 versus 512
- Environ 1% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,024 gflops versus 1,017 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 14% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 35 Watt versus 40 Watt
- 1024x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 2 GB versus 2 GB / 4 GB
- Environ 1% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 5080 MHz versus 5012 MHz
- 2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 619 versus 307
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 9114 versus 8849
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 30 October 2016 versus 18 August 2015 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 32 GTexel / s versus 31.78 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 640 versus 512 |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,024 gflops versus 1,017 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt versus 40 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 2 GB / 4 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5080 MHz versus 5012 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 619 versus 307 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9114 versus 8849 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro M1000M
- Environ 24% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 993 MHz versus 800 MHz
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 2835 versus 2723
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 38.33 versus 26.707
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 721.18 versus 568.609
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.056 versus 2.409
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 42.938 versus 39.784
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 137.786 versus 126.562
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4196 versus 3347
- 2.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3716 versus 1749
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4196 versus 3347
- 2.1x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3716 versus 1749
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 993 MHz versus 800 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2835 versus 2723 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 38.33 versus 26.707 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 721.18 versus 568.609 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.056 versus 2.409 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 42.938 versus 39.784 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 137.786 versus 126.562 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4196 versus 3347 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3716 versus 1749 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3344 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4196 versus 3347 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3716 versus 1749 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3344 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 450
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro M1000M
| 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 450 | NVIDIA Quadro M1000M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2723 | 2835 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 619 | 307 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9114 | 8849 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 26.707 | 38.33 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 568.609 | 721.18 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.409 | 3.056 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 39.784 | 42.938 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 126.562 | 137.786 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3347 | 4196 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1749 | 3716 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3344 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3347 | 4196 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1749 | 3716 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3344 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1002 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Pro 450 | NVIDIA Quadro M1000M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | Baffin | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 30 October 2016 | 18 August 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 786 | 806 |
| Genre | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $200.89 | |
| Prix maintenant | $203.37 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 16.10 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 800 MHz | 993 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,024 gflops | 1,017 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 512 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 32 GTexel / s | 31.78 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,000 million | 1,870 million |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1072 MHz | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Taille du laptop | large | large |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB / 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 81.28 GB / s | 80 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5080 MHz | 5012 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| DisplayPort 1.3 HBR / 1.4 HDR Ready | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HDMI 2.0 | ||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon Pro 450 avec des autres
AMDRadeon Pro 450 vs
ATIMobility Radeon X600 SE
AMDRadeon Pro 450 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 6100 + nForce 420
AMDRadeon Pro 450 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 570 Rev. 2
AMDRadeon Pro 450 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K5000M
AMDRadeon Pro 450 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K2200
AMDRadeon Pro 450 vs
NVIDIAQuadro P500
