AMD Radeon Pro W5500 versus AMD Radeon R9 285
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro W5500 and AMD Radeon R9 285 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: 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 W5500
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 5 ans 5 mois plus tard
- Environ 29% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1187 MHz versus 918 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 123.2 GTexel/s versus 102.8 GTexel / s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 7 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 52% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 125 Watt versus 190 Watt
- 4x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 8 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 80% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 130.7 versus 72.799
- Environ 60% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2361.73 versus 1474.632
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 13.641 versus 6.369
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 135.462 versus 91.954
- Environ 98% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 774.974 versus 391.399
- Environ 88% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 12184 versus 6474
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3463 versus 3043
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3355 versus 2782
- Environ 88% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 12184 versus 6474
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3463 versus 3043
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3355 versus 2782
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 10 Feb 2020 versus 2 September 2014 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1187 MHz versus 918 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 123.2 GTexel/s versus 102.8 GTexel / s |
| Processus de fabrication | 7 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 125 Watt versus 190 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 130.7 versus 72.799 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2361.73 versus 1474.632 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 13.641 versus 6.369 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 135.462 versus 91.954 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 774.974 versus 391.399 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12184 versus 6474 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3463 versus 3043 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 versus 2782 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12184 versus 6474 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3463 versus 3043 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 versus 2782 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 285
- Environ 27% de pipelines plus haut: 1792 versus 1408
- 3.1x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 5500 MHz versus 1750 MHz (14000 MHz effective)
| Pipelines | 1792 versus 1408 |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5500 MHz versus 1750 MHz (14000 MHz effective) |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro W5500
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 285
| 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 W5500 | AMD Radeon R9 285 |
|---|---|---|
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 130.7 | 72.799 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2361.73 | 1474.632 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 13.641 | 6.369 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 135.462 | 91.954 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 774.974 | 391.399 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 12184 | 6474 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3463 | 3043 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 | 2782 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 12184 | 6474 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3463 | 3043 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 | 2782 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6680 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 597 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2778 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Pro W5500 | AMD Radeon R9 285 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 3.0 |
| Nom de code | Navi 14 | Tonga |
| Date de sortie | 10 Feb 2020 | 2 September 2014 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $399 | $249 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 330 | 445 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1400 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1187 MHz | 918 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 246.4 GFLOPS (1:16) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 7.885 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 3.942 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 1408 | 1792 |
| Pixel fill rate | 44.80 GPixel/s | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 123.2 GTexel/s | 102.8 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 125 Watt | 190 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 6400 million | 5,000 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,290 gflops | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 221 mm |
| Énergie du systeme recommandé (PSU) | 350 Watt | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | 2x 6-pin |
| Largeur | Single-slot | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 224 GB/s | 176.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1750 MHz (14000 MHz effective) | 5500 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon Pro W5500 avec des autres
AMDRadeon Pro W5500 vs
ATIRadeon X1950 CrossFire Edition
AMDRadeon Pro W5500 vs
AMDRadeon RX 580
AMDRadeon Pro W5500 vs
AMDRadeon RX Vega M GH
AMDRadeon Pro W5500 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1660 Ti Max-Q
AMDRadeon Pro W5500 vs
NVIDIAT550 Mobile
AMDRadeon Pro W5500 vs
NVIDIACMP 30HX
