AMD Radeon Pro 575 versus AMD Radeon R9 290
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro 575 and AMD Radeon R9 290 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: 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), PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon Pro 575
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 7 mois plus tard
- Environ 16% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1096 MHz versus 947 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 2.3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 120 Watt versus 275 Watt
- Environ 36% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 6800 MHz versus 5000 MHz
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 9613 versus 6300
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 9613 versus 6300
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 5 June 2017 versus 5 November 2013 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1096 MHz versus 947 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 120 Watt versus 275 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6800 MHz versus 5000 MHz |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9613 versus 6300 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9613 versus 6300 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 290
- Environ 8% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 151.5 GTexel / s versus 140.8 GTexel / s
- Environ 25% de pipelines plus haut: 2560 versus 2048
- Environ 8% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 4,849 gflops versus 4,506 gflops
- 2.9x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 102277 versus 34757
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 89.325 versus 86.154
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1366.314 versus 1090.128
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 10.034 versus 7.88
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3711 versus 2814
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3711 versus 2814
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 151.5 GTexel / s versus 140.8 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2560 versus 2048 |
| Performance á point flottant | 4,849 gflops versus 4,506 gflops |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 102277 versus 34757 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 89.325 versus 86.154 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1366.314 versus 1090.128 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 10.034 versus 7.88 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 98.765 versus 98.349 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 540.645 versus 539.686 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3711 versus 2814 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 versus 3352 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3711 versus 2814 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 versus 3352 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 575
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 290
| 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 575 | AMD Radeon R9 290 |
|---|---|---|
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 34757 | 102277 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 86.154 | 89.325 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1090.128 | 1366.314 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.88 | 10.034 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 98.349 | 98.765 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 539.686 | 540.645 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9613 | 6300 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2814 | 3711 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 3354 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9613 | 6300 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2814 | 3711 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 3354 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 8313 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 775 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3685 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Pro 575 | AMD Radeon R9 290 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 2.0 |
| Nom de code | Polaris 20 | Hawaii |
| Date de sortie | 5 June 2017 | 5 November 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 486 | 347 |
| Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $399 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 1096 MHz | 947 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 4,506 gflops | 4,849 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 2048 | 2560 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 140.8 GTexel / s | 151.5 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 120 Watt | 275 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 5,700 million | 6,200 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 241 mm | 275 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 217.6 GB / s | 320.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 512 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6800 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon Pro 575 avec des autres
AMDRadeon Pro 575 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9650M GS
AMDRadeon Pro 575 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9800 GX2
AMDRadeon Pro 575 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 370M
AMDRadeon Pro 575 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7970
AMDRadeon Pro 575 vs
NVIDIAGRID K240Q
AMDRadeon Pro 575 vs
AMDRadeon R9 M295X
