AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 versus AMD Radeon HD 7870 XT
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and AMD Radeon HD 7870 XT 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 WX 3200
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 6 ans 6 mois plus tard
- Environ 11% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1082 MHz versus 975 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 34.62 GTexel/s versus 93.6 GTexel / s
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 2.8x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 65 Watt versus 185 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 27 May 2019 versus 19 November 2012 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1082 MHz versus 975 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 34.62 GTexel/s versus 93.6 GTexel / s |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt versus 185 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3274 versus 3264 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3274 versus 3264 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon HD 7870 XT
- Environ 50% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 6000 MHz versus 4000 MHz
- Environ 84% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4470 versus 2428
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 661 versus 444
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 65.399 versus 25.896
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1230.47 versus 486.804
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.313 versus 2.503
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 78.519 versus 53.111
- 3.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 345.793 versus 100.658
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2810 versus 2524
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2810 versus 2524
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6000 MHz versus 4000 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4470 versus 2428 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 661 versus 444 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 65.399 versus 25.896 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1230.47 versus 486.804 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.313 versus 2.503 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 78.519 versus 53.111 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 345.793 versus 100.658 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2810 versus 2524 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 versus 3352 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2810 versus 2524 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 versus 3352 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 7870 XT
| 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 WX 3200 | AMD Radeon HD 7870 XT |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2428 | 4470 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 444 | 661 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 14535 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.896 | 65.399 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 486.804 | 1230.47 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.503 | 6.313 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 53.111 | 78.519 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 100.658 | 345.793 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2524 | 2810 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3274 | 3264 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 3354 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2524 | 2810 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3274 | 3264 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 3354 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1745 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 | AMD Radeon HD 7870 XT | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Polaris | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Lexa | Tahiti |
| Date de sortie | 27 May 2019 | 19 November 2012 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $199 | $270 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 812 | 535 |
| Genre | Workstation | Desktop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1082 MHz | 975 MHz |
| Unités de Compute | 10 | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 925 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 86.56 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 1,385 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 1,385 GFLOPS | |
| Pixel fill rate | 17.31 GPixel/s | |
| Stream Processors | 640 | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 34.62 GTexel/s | 93.6 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 185 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 2200 million | 4,313 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,995 gflops | |
| Pipelines | 1536 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 4x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Hauteur | Half Height | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 6.6" (168 mm) | 267 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 2x 6-pin |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 96 GB/s | 192.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz | 6000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| Video Code Engine (VCE) | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 avec des autres
AMDRadeon Pro WX 3200 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 6800 GT
AMDRadeon Pro WX 3200 vs
AMDRadeon PRO WX 2100
AMDRadeon Pro WX 3200 vs
AMDRadeon RX Vega 11
AMDRadeon Pro WX 3200 vs
IntelIris Plus Graphics 645
AMDRadeon Pro WX 3200 vs
AMDRadeon Vega 9
AMDRadeon Pro WX 3200 vs
AMDRadeon RX 640
