AMD Radeon Pro 555 versus AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro 555 and AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon Pro 555
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 4 ans 4 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 2.7x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 200 Watt
- Environ 2% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 5100 MHz versus 5000 MHz
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3141 versus 2793
- Environ 80% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 659 versus 366
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 5 June 2017 versus 8 January 2013 |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 200 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5100 MHz versus 5000 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3141 versus 2793 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 659 versus 366 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3349 versus 3348 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3349 versus 3348 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 103.6 GTexel / s versus 40.8 GTexel / s
- 2.3x plus de pipelines: 1792 versus 768
- 2.5x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 3,315 gflops versus 1,306 gflops
- Environ 50% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 3 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 13791 versus 11375
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 40.311 versus 31.301
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 795.334 versus 572.795
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.328 versus 2.83
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 64.205 versus 26.388
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 181.508 versus 162.706
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4396 versus 4042
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3705 versus 2221
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4396 versus 4042
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3705 versus 2221
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 103.6 GTexel / s versus 40.8 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1792 versus 768 |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,315 gflops versus 1,306 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 3 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 13791 versus 11375 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 40.311 versus 31.301 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 795.334 versus 572.795 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.328 versus 2.83 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 64.205 versus 26.388 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 181.508 versus 162.706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4396 versus 4042 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3705 versus 2221 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4396 versus 4042 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3705 versus 2221 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 555
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM
| 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 555 | AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3141 | 2793 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 659 | 366 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 11375 | 13791 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 31.301 | 40.311 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 572.795 | 795.334 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.83 | 3.328 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 26.388 | 64.205 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 162.706 | 181.508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4042 | 4396 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2221 | 3705 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3349 | 3348 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4042 | 4396 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2221 | 3705 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3349 | 3348 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Pro 555 | AMD Radeon HD 8950 OEM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Polaris 21 | Tahiti |
| Date de sortie | 5 June 2017 | 8 January 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 719 | 722 |
| Genre | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 850 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,306 gflops | 3,315 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 1792 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 40.8 GTexel / s | 103.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 200 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,000 million | 4,313 million |
| Vitesse augmenté | 925 MHz | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 2x 6-pin |
| Longeur | 267 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 3 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 81.6 GB / s | 240.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5100 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| DisplayPort 1.3 HBR / 1.4 HDR Ready | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HDMI 2.0 | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon Pro 555 avec des autres
AMDRadeon Pro 555 vs
ATIRadeon X300 SE
AMDRadeon Pro 555 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 6100 + nForce 400
AMDRadeon Pro 555 vs
ATIRadeon X1650 PRO
AMDRadeon Pro 555 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8950 OEM
AMDRadeon Pro 555 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 965M
AMDRadeon Pro 555 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M
