AMD Radeon Pro 560 versus AMD Radeon R7 260X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro 560 and AMD Radeon R7 260X 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 560
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 6 mois plus tard
- Environ 14% de pipelines plus haut: 1024 versus 896
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 53% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 75 Watt versus 115 Watt
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3475 versus 3183
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 724 versus 521
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.837 versus 3.673
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4695 versus 3845
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4695 versus 3845
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 18 April 2017 versus 8 October 2013 |
| Pipelines | 1024 versus 896 |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt versus 115 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3475 versus 3183 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 724 versus 521 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.837 versus 3.673 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4695 versus 3845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4695 versus 3845 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 260X
- Environ 6% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 61.6 GTexel / s versus 58.05 GTexel / s
- Environ 6% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,971 gflops versus 1,858 gflops
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 43.745 versus 41.388
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 804.436 versus 614.695
- 2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 64.088 versus 31.274
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 221.539 versus 189.085
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3485 versus 2280
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3485 versus 2280
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 61.6 GTexel / s versus 58.05 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,971 gflops versus 1,858 gflops |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 43.745 versus 41.388 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 804.436 versus 614.695 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 64.088 versus 31.274 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 221.539 versus 189.085 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3485 versus 2280 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3349 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3485 versus 2280 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3349 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 560
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 260X
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| 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 560 | AMD Radeon R7 260X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3475 | 3183 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 724 | 521 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 15826 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 41.388 | 43.745 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 614.695 | 804.436 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.837 | 3.673 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 31.274 | 64.088 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 189.085 | 221.539 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4695 | 3845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2280 | 3485 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3349 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4695 | 3845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2280 | 3485 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3349 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1481 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Pro 560 | AMD Radeon R7 260X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 2.0 |
| Nom de code | Polaris 21 | Bonaire |
| Date de sortie | 18 April 2017 | 8 October 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 624 | 639 |
| Genre | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $139 | |
| Prix maintenant | $239 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 17.15 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 907 MHz | |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,858 gflops | 1,971 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1024 | 896 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 58.05 GTexel / s | 61.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 115 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,000 million | 2,080 million |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1000 MHz | |
| Stream Processors | 896 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 1 x 6-pin |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Longeur | 170 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 81.28 GB / s | 104 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5080 MHz | |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| DisplayPort 1.3 HBR / 1.4 HDR Ready | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HDMI 2.0 | ||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon Pro 560 avec des autres
AMDRadeon Pro 560 vs
ATIFirePro V9800
AMDRadeon Pro 560 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6990
AMDRadeon Pro 560 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 775M Mac Edition
AMDRadeon Pro 560 vs
AMDRadeon RX 540 OEM
AMDRadeon Pro 560 vs
AMDRadeon RX Vega M GL
AMDRadeon Pro 560 vs
IntelIris Xe Graphics G4
