AMD Radeon Pro 555 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro 555 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 555
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 4 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 2x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 5100 MHz versus 2500 MHz
- Environ 96% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 659 versus 337
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 5 June 2017 versus 9 January 2015 |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5100 MHz versus 2500 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 659 versus 337 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3349 versus 3337 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3349 versus 3337 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
- Environ 11% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 944 MHz versus 850 MHz
- Environ 80% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 73.6 GTexel / s versus 40.8 GTexel / s
- Environ 33% de pipelines plus haut: 1024 versus 768
- Environ 80% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,355 gflops versus 1,306 gflops
- Environ 50% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 75 Watt
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3797 versus 3141
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 14360 versus 11375
- 2.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.59 versus 31.301
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 720.592 versus 572.795
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.903 versus 2.83
- 2.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 57.947 versus 26.388
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 223.296 versus 162.706
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5783 versus 4042
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2566 versus 2221
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5783 versus 4042
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2566 versus 2221
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 944 MHz versus 850 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 73.6 GTexel / s versus 40.8 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1024 versus 768 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,355 gflops versus 1,306 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3797 versus 3141 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 14360 versus 11375 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.59 versus 31.301 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 720.592 versus 572.795 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.903 versus 2.83 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 57.947 versus 26.388 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 223.296 versus 162.706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5783 versus 4042 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2566 versus 2221 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5783 versus 4042 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2566 versus 2221 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 555
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 555 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3141 | 3797 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 659 | 337 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 11375 | 14360 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 31.301 | 67.59 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 572.795 | 720.592 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.83 | 3.903 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 26.388 | 57.947 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 162.706 | 223.296 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4042 | 5783 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2221 | 2566 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3349 | 3337 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4042 | 5783 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2221 | 2566 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3349 | 3337 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1831 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Pro 555 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Nom de code | Polaris 21 | GM204 |
| Date de sortie | 5 June 2017 | 9 January 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 719 | 721 |
| Genre | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 850 MHz | 944 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,306 gflops | 2,355 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 1024 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 40.8 GTexel / s | 73.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,000 million | 5,200 million |
| Vitesse augmenté | 950 MHz | |
| Noyaux CUDA | 1024 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 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) |
| Taille du laptop | large | large |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| 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 | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 81.6 GB / s | 80 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5100 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| DisplayPort 1.3 HBR / 1.4 HDR Ready | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HDMI 2.0 | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
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
