AMD Radeon Pro 560 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook)
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro 560 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) 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 2 mois plus tard
- Environ 60% de pipelines plus haut: 1024 versus 640
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 16 nm
- 2.5x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 724 versus 292
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 31.274 versus 30.523
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 18 April 2017 versus 1 February 2017 |
| Pipelines | 1024 versus 640 |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 16 nm |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 724 versus 292 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 31.274 versus 30.523 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook)
- Environ 49% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1354 MHz versus 907 MHz
- Environ 3% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 59.72 GTexel / s versus 58.05 GTexel / s
- Environ 3% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,911 gflops versus 1,858 gflops
- Environ 38% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 7008 MHz versus 5080 MHz
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4462 versus 3475
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 17470 versus 15566
- Environ 62% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.209 versus 41.388
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 799.414 versus 614.695
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.536 versus 3.837
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 223.683 versus 189.085
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7239 versus 4695
- Environ 63% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3721 versus 2280
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7239 versus 4695
- Environ 63% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3721 versus 2280
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1354 MHz versus 907 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 59.72 GTexel / s versus 58.05 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,911 gflops versus 1,858 gflops |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz versus 5080 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4462 versus 3475 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 17470 versus 15566 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.209 versus 41.388 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 799.414 versus 614.695 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.536 versus 3.837 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 223.683 versus 189.085 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7239 versus 4695 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3721 versus 2280 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 versus 3349 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7239 versus 4695 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3721 versus 2280 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 versus 3349 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 560
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook)
| 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 560 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3475 | 4462 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 724 | 292 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 15566 | 17470 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 41.388 | 67.209 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 614.695 | 799.414 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.837 | 4.536 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 31.274 | 30.523 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 189.085 | 223.683 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4695 | 7239 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2280 | 3721 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3349 | 3359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4695 | 7239 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2280 | 3721 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3349 | 3359 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2084 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Pro 560 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Pascal |
| Nom de code | Polaris 21 | GP106B |
| Date de sortie | 18 April 2017 | 1 February 2017 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 625 | 626 |
| Genre | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 907 MHz | 1354 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,858 gflops | 1,911 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Pipelines | 1024 | 640 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 58.05 GTexel / s | 59.72 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,000 million | 4,400 million |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1493 MHz | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | large | large |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 81.28 GB / s | 112.1 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5080 MHz | 7008 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| DisplayPort 1.3 HBR / 1.4 HDR Ready | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HDMI 2.0 | ||
| Multi Monitor | ||
| Multi-Projection | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon Pro 560 avec des autres
AMDRadeon Pro 560 vs
ATIRadeon X800 XT
AMDRadeon Pro 560 vs
ATIRadeon X800 XL
AMDRadeon Pro 560 vs
AMDRadeon R9 M270X
AMDRadeon Pro 560 vs
AMDRadeon R7 360
AMDRadeon Pro 560 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook)
AMDRadeon Pro 560 vs
IntelIris Xe Graphics G4
