AMD Radeon Pro 555 versus NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro 555 and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M 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 1 ans 6 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
- Environ 94% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 659 versus 340
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 11207 versus 8148
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 5 June 2017 versus 3 December 2015 |
| 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 340 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 11207 versus 8148 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
- Environ 21% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1029 MHz versus 850 MHz
- Environ 8% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 43.92 GTexel / s versus 40.8 GTexel / s
- Environ 8% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,405 gflops versus 1,306 gflops
- Environ 36% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 55 Watt versus 75 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3461 versus 3141
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 47.281 versus 31.301
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 782.113 versus 572.795
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.5 versus 2.83
- Environ 93% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.048 versus 26.388
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 172.896 versus 162.706
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4920 versus 4042
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 versus 2221
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4920 versus 4042
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 versus 2221
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1029 MHz versus 850 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 43.92 GTexel / s versus 40.8 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,405 gflops versus 1,306 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3461 versus 3141 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 47.281 versus 31.301 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 782.113 versus 572.795 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.5 versus 2.83 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.048 versus 26.388 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 172.896 versus 162.706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4920 versus 4042 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 versus 2221 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 versus 3349 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4920 versus 4042 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 versus 2221 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 versus 3349 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 555
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
| 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 M2000M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3141 | 3461 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 659 | 340 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 11207 | 8148 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 31.301 | 47.281 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 572.795 | 782.113 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.83 | 3.5 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 26.388 | 51.048 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 162.706 | 172.896 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4042 | 4920 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2221 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3349 | 3355 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4042 | 4920 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2221 | 3715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3349 | 3355 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Pro 555 | NVIDIA Quadro M2000M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | Polaris 21 | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 5 June 2017 | 3 December 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 718 | 719 |
| Genre | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 850 MHz | 1029 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,306 gflops | 1,405 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 640 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 40.8 GTexel / s | 43.92 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,000 million | 1,870 million |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1098 MHz | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Taille du laptop | large | large |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 4 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 | 5012 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| DisplayPort 1.3 HBR / 1.4 HDR Ready | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HDMI 2.0 | ||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
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 6850 X2
AMDRadeon Pro 555 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8950 OEM
AMDRadeon Pro 555 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M2000M
