AMD Radeon Pro 555 versus NVIDIA Quadro M1200 Mobile
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro 555 and NVIDIA Quadro M1200 Mobile 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 mois plus tard
- Environ 20% de pipelines plus haut: 768 versus 640
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 2% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 5100 MHz versus 5012 MHz
- 2.1x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 659 versus 319
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 11389 versus 10582
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 5 June 2017 versus 11 January 2017 |
| Pipelines | 768 versus 640 |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5100 MHz versus 5012 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 659 versus 319 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 11389 versus 10582 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro M1200 Mobile
- Environ 29% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1093 MHz versus 850 MHz
- Environ 7% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 43.72 GTexel / s versus 40.8 GTexel / s
- Environ 7% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,399 gflops versus 1,306 gflops
- Environ 67% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 45 Watt versus 75 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3245 versus 3141
- Environ 69% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 52.821 versus 31.301
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 793.297 versus 572.795
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.631 versus 2.83
- Environ 86% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 48.966 versus 26.388
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4941 versus 4042
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2645 versus 2221
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4941 versus 4042
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2645 versus 2221
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1093 MHz versus 850 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 43.72 GTexel / s versus 40.8 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,399 gflops versus 1,306 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3245 versus 3141 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 52.821 versus 31.301 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 793.297 versus 572.795 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.631 versus 2.83 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 48.966 versus 26.388 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 163.204 versus 162.706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4941 versus 4042 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2645 versus 2221 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 versus 3349 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4941 versus 4042 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2645 versus 2221 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 versus 3349 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 555
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro M1200 Mobile
| 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 Quadro M1200 Mobile |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3141 | 3245 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 659 | 319 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 11389 | 10582 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 31.301 | 52.821 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 572.795 | 793.297 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.83 | 3.631 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 26.388 | 48.966 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 162.706 | 163.204 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4042 | 4941 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2221 | 2645 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3349 | 3359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4042 | 4941 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2221 | 2645 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3349 | 3359 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Pro 555 | NVIDIA Quadro M1200 Mobile | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | Polaris 21 | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 5 June 2017 | 11 January 2017 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 712 | 767 |
| Genre | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 850 MHz | 1093 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,306 gflops | 1,399 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 640 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 40.8 GTexel / s | 43.72 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,000 million | 1,870 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 81.6 GB / s | 80.19 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5100 MHz | 5012 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
NVIDIAGeForce 6700 XL
AMDRadeon Pro 555 vs
ATIMobility Radeon X2300 HD
AMDRadeon Pro 555 vs
ATIRadeon E4690
AMDRadeon Pro 555 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 570
AMDRadeon Pro 555 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6850 X2
AMDRadeon Pro 555 vs
IntelArc Pro A40
