AMD Radeon R4 Graphics versus Intel HD Graphics 4000
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R4 Graphics and Intel HD Graphics 4000 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 R4 Graphics
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 0 mois plus tard
- Environ 23% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 800 MHz versus 650 MHz
- Environ 52% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 6.4 GTexel / s versus 4.2 GTexel / s
- 8x plus de pipelines: 128 versus 16
- 6.1x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 204.8 gflops versus 33.6 gflops
- 3x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 45 Watt
- 15.6x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 8386 versus 538
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 10.612 versus 7.36
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 13.097 versus 12.009
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 11 June 2014 versus 14 May 2012 |
Vitesse du noyau | 800 MHz versus 650 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 6.4 GTexel / s versus 4.2 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 128 versus 16 |
Performance á point flottant | 204.8 gflops versus 33.6 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 45 Watt |
Référence | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8386 versus 538 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 10.612 versus 7.36 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 13.097 versus 12.009 |
Raisons pour considerer le Intel HD Graphics 4000
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 22 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 347 versus 342
- Environ 96% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 194 versus 99
- Environ 85% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 8.712 versus 4.721
- Environ 45% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 155.638 versus 107.613
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.931 versus 0.445
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 754 versus 701
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1492 versus 1338
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2392 versus 1811
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 754 versus 701
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1492 versus 1338
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2392 versus 1811
Caractéristiques | |
Processus de fabrication | 22 nm versus 28 nm |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 347 versus 342 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 versus 99 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.712 versus 4.721 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 155.638 versus 107.613 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.931 versus 0.445 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 754 versus 701 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1492 versus 1338 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2392 versus 1811 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 754 versus 701 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1492 versus 1338 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2392 versus 1811 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R4 Graphics
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4000
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 R4 Graphics | Intel HD Graphics 4000 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 342 | 347 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 99 | 194 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8386 | 538 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 4.721 | 8.712 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 107.613 | 155.638 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.445 | 0.931 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 10.612 | 7.36 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 13.097 | 12.009 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 701 | 754 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1338 | 1492 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1811 | 2392 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 701 | 754 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1338 | 1492 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1811 | 2392 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R4 Graphics | Intel HD Graphics 4000 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Generation 7.0 |
Nom de code | Beema | Ivy Bridge GT2 |
Date de sortie | 11 June 2014 | 14 May 2012 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1540 | 1501 |
Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse du noyau | 800 MHz | 650 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 204.8 gflops | 33.6 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 22 nm |
Pipelines | 128 | 16 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 6.4 GTexel / s | 4.2 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 45 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 930 million | 1,200 million |
Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | IGP | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 11.1 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.0 |
Mémoire |
||
Genre de mémoire | System Shared | |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | |
Mémoire partagé | 1 | |
Technologies |
||
Quick Sync |