AMD Radeon Pro 5500M versus NVIDIA Titan X Pascal
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro 5500M and NVIDIA Titan X Pascal 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 3 ans 3 mois plus tard
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 124.8 GTexel/s versus 342.9 GTexel / s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 7 nm versus 16 nm
- 2.9x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 85 Watt versus 250 Watt
- Environ 20% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 12000 MHz versus 10008 MHz
- 4.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 94.947 versus 21.354
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 versus 3333
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 versus 3333
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 13 Nov 2019 versus 2 August 2016 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 124.8 GTexel/s versus 342.9 GTexel / s |
| Processus de fabrication | 7 nm versus 16 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 85 Watt versus 250 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 12000 MHz versus 10008 MHz |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 94.947 versus 21.354 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 versus 3333 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 versus 3333 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Titan X Pascal
- Environ 42% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1417 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 18% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1531 MHz versus 1300 MHz
- 2.3x plus de pipelines: 3584 versus 1536
- Environ 50% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 12 GB versus 8 GB
- Environ 74% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 63437 versus 36509
- Environ 57% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 165.792 versus 105.82
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2368.267 versus 1860.146
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 17.829 versus 11.238
- Environ 66% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 992.132 versus 596.819
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10841 versus 9175
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3696 versus 3670
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10841 versus 9175
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3696 versus 3670
- 2.8x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 9559 versus 3426
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1417 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1531 MHz versus 1300 MHz |
| Pipelines | 3584 versus 1536 |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 12 GB versus 8 GB |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 63437 versus 36509 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 165.792 versus 105.82 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2368.267 versus 1860.146 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 17.829 versus 11.238 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 992.132 versus 596.819 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10841 versus 9175 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3696 versus 3670 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10841 versus 9175 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3696 versus 3670 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 9559 versus 3426 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Titan X Pascal
| 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 |
|
|
| Nom | AMD Radeon Pro 5500M | NVIDIA Titan X Pascal |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6832 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 673 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 36509 | 63437 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 105.82 | 165.792 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1860.146 | 2368.267 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.238 | 17.829 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 94.947 | 21.354 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 596.819 | 992.132 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9175 | 10841 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3670 | 3696 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 | 3333 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9175 | 10841 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3670 | 3696 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 | 3333 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3426 | 9559 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Pro 5500M | NVIDIA Titan X Pascal | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Pascal |
| Nom de code | Navi 14 | GP102 |
| Date de sortie | 13 Nov 2019 | 2 August 2016 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 365 | 346 |
| Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $1,199 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1300 MHz | 1531 MHz |
| Unités de Compute | 24 | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz | 1417 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 7 nm | 16 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 | 3584 |
| Pixel fill rate | 41.60 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 124.8 GTexel/s | 342.9 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 85 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 6400 million | 11,800 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 10,974 gflops | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Longeur | 267 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 8 GB | 12 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 192 GB/s | 480.4 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 384 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 12000 MHz | 10008 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon Pro 5500M avec des autres
AMDRadeon Pro 5500M vs
ATIFireGL V8600
AMDRadeon Pro 5500M vs
AMDFirePro S9050
AMDRadeon Pro 5500M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1060 3 GB
AMDRadeon Pro 5500M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q
AMDRadeon Pro 5500M vs
NVIDIAQuadro T2000 Mobile
AMDRadeon Pro 5500M vs
NVIDIAQuadro T1000 Max-Q
