AMD Radeon Pro 5500M versus AMD FirePro S9050
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro 5500M and AMD FirePro S9050 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 Pro 5500M
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 5 ans 3 mois plus tard
- Environ 11% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1000 MHz versus 900 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 124.8 GTexel/s versus 100.8 GTexel / s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 7 nm versus 28 nm
- 2.6x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 85 Watt versus 225 Watt
- 2.2x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 12000 MHz versus 5500 MHz
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 6779 versus 4901
- Environ 80% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 663 versus 369
- Environ 55% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 105.82 versus 68.324
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1860.146 versus 1463.376
- Environ 73% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 11.238 versus 6.491
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 94.947 versus 91.133
- Environ 73% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 596.819 versus 344.551
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 9175 versus 7062
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 9175 versus 7062
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 Nov 2019 versus 7 August 2014 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz versus 900 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 124.8 GTexel/s versus 100.8 GTexel / s |
| Processus de fabrication | 7 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 85 Watt versus 225 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 12000 MHz versus 5500 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6779 versus 4901 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 663 versus 369 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 105.82 versus 68.324 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1860.146 versus 1463.376 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.238 versus 6.491 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 94.947 versus 91.133 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 596.819 versus 344.551 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9175 versus 7062 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9175 versus 7062 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro S9050
- Environ 17% de pipelines plus haut: 1792 versus 1536
- Environ 50% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 12 GB versus 8 GB
- Environ 71% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 6260 versus 3670
- 3.9x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 13032 versus 3353
- Environ 71% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 6260 versus 3670
- 3.9x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 13032 versus 3353
| Caractéristiques | |
| Pipelines | 1792 versus 1536 |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 12 GB versus 8 GB |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 6260 versus 3670 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 13032 versus 3353 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 6260 versus 3670 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 13032 versus 3353 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
GPU 2: AMD FirePro S9050
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| 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 5500M | AMD FirePro S9050 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6779 | 4901 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 663 | 369 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 36965 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 105.82 | 68.324 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1860.146 | 1463.376 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.238 | 6.491 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 94.947 | 91.133 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 596.819 | 344.551 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9175 | 7062 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3670 | 6260 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 | 13032 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9175 | 7062 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3670 | 6260 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 | 13032 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3426 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Pro 5500M | AMD FirePro S9050 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Navi 14 | Tahiti |
| Date de sortie | 13 Nov 2019 | 7 August 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 376 | 373 |
| Genre | Laptop | Workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1300 MHz | |
| Unités de Compute | 24 | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 249.6 GFLOPS (1:16) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 7.987 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.994 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 1536 | 1792 |
| Pixel fill rate | 41.60 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 124.8 GTexel/s | 100.8 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 85 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 6400 million | 4,313 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,226 gflops | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 1x 8-pin |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Facteur de forme | Full Height / Full Length | |
| Longeur | 254 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 8 GB | 12 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 192 GB/s | 264 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 384 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 12000 MHz | 5500 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon Pro 5500M avec des autres
AMDRadeon Pro 5500M vs
ATIRadeon X800 GT
AMDRadeon Pro 5500M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTS 150M
AMDRadeon Pro 5500M vs
NVIDIAQuadro K6000
AMDRadeon Pro 5500M vs
AMDFirePro S9050
AMDRadeon Pro 5500M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q
AMDRadeon Pro 5500M vs
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Mobile
