AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM versus AMD FirePro W2100
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM and AMD FirePro W2100 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 430 OEM
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 10 mois plus tard
- Environ 16% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 730 MHz versus 630 MHz
- Environ 15% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 780 MHz versus 680 MHz
- Environ 38% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 18.72 GTexel / s versus 13.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 20% de pipelines plus haut: 384 versus 320
- Environ 38% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 599.0 gflops versus 435.2 gflops
- 8x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 400 Watt
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 913 versus 869
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5733 versus 3724
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 12.111 versus 10.438
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.211 versus 0.991
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 23.777 versus 19.794
- Environ 46% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 73.506 versus 50.338
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1645 versus 1494
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2426 versus 2329
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1645 versus 1494
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2426 versus 2329
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 versus 12 August 2014 |
Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz versus 630 MHz |
Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz versus 680 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.72 GTexel / s versus 13.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 384 versus 320 |
Performance á point flottant | 599.0 gflops versus 435.2 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 400 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 913 versus 869 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5733 versus 3724 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 12.111 versus 10.438 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.211 versus 0.991 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.777 versus 19.794 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 73.506 versus 50.338 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1645 versus 1494 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2426 versus 2329 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1645 versus 1494 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2426 versus 2329 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD FirePro W2100
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 318 versus 302
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 289.646 versus 253.178
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3346 versus 1677
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3346 versus 1677
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 318 versus 302 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 289.646 versus 253.178 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3346 versus 1677 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3346 versus 1677 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM
GPU 2: AMD FirePro W2100
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 430 OEM | AMD FirePro W2100 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 913 | 869 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 302 | 318 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5733 | 3724 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 12.111 | 10.438 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 253.178 | 289.646 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.211 | 0.991 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.777 | 19.794 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 73.506 | 50.338 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1645 | 1494 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2426 | 2329 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1677 | 3346 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1645 | 1494 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2426 | 2329 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1677 | 3346 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1058 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM | AMD FirePro W2100 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
Nom de code | Oland | Oland |
Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 | 12 August 2014 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1208 | 1210 |
Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz | 680 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz | 630 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 599.0 gflops | 435.2 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 320 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.72 GTexel / s | 13.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 400 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 1,040 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 2x DisplayPort |
Compte DisplayPort | 2 | |
Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
Facteur de forme | Low Profile / Half Length | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12.0 (11_1) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | 28.8 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 1800 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | n / a |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
AppAcceleration | ||
Powerplay |