AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM versus Intel HD Graphics 4400
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM and Intel HD Graphics 4400 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 R5 240 OEM
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 mois plus tard
- 2.1x plus de vitesse du noyau: 730 MHz versus 350 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 15.6 GTexel / s versus 4.6 GTexel / s
- 16x plus de pipelines: 320 versus 20
- 10.9x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 499.2 gflops versus 46 gflops
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 545 versus 522
- 2.3x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 4947 versus 2145
- Environ 73% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 13.569 versus 7.844
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 162.886 versus 154.696
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.009 versus 0.958
- 2.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 19.668 versus 9.084
- 9.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 77.819 versus 8.335
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1119 versus 817
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1119 versus 817
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 1 November 2013 versus 3 September 2013 |
Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz versus 350 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 15.6 GTexel / s versus 4.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 320 versus 20 |
Performance á point flottant | 499.2 gflops versus 46 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 545 versus 522 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4947 versus 2145 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.569 versus 7.844 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 162.886 versus 154.696 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.009 versus 0.958 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.668 versus 9.084 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 77.819 versus 8.335 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1119 versus 817 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1119 versus 817 |
Raisons pour considerer le Intel HD Graphics 4400
- Environ 47% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1150 MHz versus 780 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 22 nm versus 28 nm
- 2.5x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 20 Watt versus 50 Watt
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 277 versus 193
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1381 versus 1284
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3044 versus 2264
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1381 versus 1284
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3044 versus 2264
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz versus 780 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 22 nm versus 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt versus 50 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 277 versus 193 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1381 versus 1284 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3044 versus 2264 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1381 versus 1284 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3044 versus 2264 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4400
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 R5 240 OEM | Intel HD Graphics 4400 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 545 | 522 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 193 | 277 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4947 | 2145 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.569 | 7.844 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 162.886 | 154.696 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.009 | 0.958 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 19.668 | 9.084 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 77.819 | 8.335 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1119 | 817 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1284 | 1381 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2264 | 3044 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1119 | 817 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1284 | 1381 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2264 | 3044 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 152 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM | Intel HD Graphics 4400 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 7.5 |
Nom de code | Oland | Haswell GT2 |
Date de sortie | 1 November 2013 | 3 September 2013 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1414 | 1415 |
Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz | 1150 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz | 350 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 499.2 gflops | 46 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 22 nm |
Pipelines | 320 | 20 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 15.6 GTexel / s | 4.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 20 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 392 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
Longeur | 168 mm | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12.0 (11_1) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.3 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | |
Mémoire partagé | 1 | |
Technologies |
||
Quick Sync |