AMD Radeon Pro 575 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro 575 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M 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 2 ans 7 mois plus tard
- Environ 6% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1096 MHz versus 1038 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 140.8 GTexel / s versus 51.84 GTexel / s
- Environ 33% de pipelines plus haut: 2048 versus 1536
- 2.7x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 4,506 gflops versus 1,659 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 2.7x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 6800 MHz versus 2500 MHz
- Environ 61% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 34757 versus 21639
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 7.88 versus 6.776
- 5.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 98.349 versus 18.431
- Environ 75% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 539.686 versus 308.42
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 5 June 2017 versus 7 October 2014 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1096 MHz versus 1038 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 140.8 GTexel / s versus 51.84 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 2048 versus 1536 |
| Performance á point flottant | 4,506 gflops versus 1,659 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6800 MHz versus 2500 MHz |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 34757 versus 21639 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.88 versus 6.776 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 98.349 versus 18.431 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 539.686 versus 308.42 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 versus 3342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 versus 3342 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M
- Environ 20% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 100 Watt versus 120 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 8 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 92.634 versus 86.154
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1146.534 versus 1090.128
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10572 versus 9613
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3695 versus 2814
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10572 versus 9613
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3695 versus 2814
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt versus 120 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 4 GB |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 92.634 versus 86.154 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1146.534 versus 1090.128 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10572 versus 9613 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3695 versus 2814 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10572 versus 9613 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3695 versus 2814 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 575
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M
| 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 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M |
|---|---|---|
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 34757 | 21639 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 86.154 | 92.634 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1090.128 | 1146.534 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.88 | 6.776 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 98.349 | 18.431 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 539.686 | 308.42 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9613 | 10572 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2814 | 3695 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 3342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9613 | 10572 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2814 | 3695 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 3342 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 7352 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 499 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2942 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Pro 575 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Nom de code | Polaris 20 | GM204 |
| Date de sortie | 5 June 2017 | 7 October 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 486 | 450 |
| Genre | Workstation | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 1096 MHz | 1038 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 4,506 gflops | 1,659 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 2048 | 1536 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 140.8 GTexel / s | 51.84 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 120 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 5,700 million | 5,200 million |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1127 MHz | |
| Noyaux CUDA | 1536 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Soutien de DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) | 1 | |
| Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Soutien de l’écran analog VGA | 1 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Longeur | 241 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
| Options SLI | 1 | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 217.6 GB / s | 160 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6800 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
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
