AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM versus AMD Radeon R7 250
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM and AMD Radeon R7 250 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 2 ans 8 mois plus tard
- Environ 50% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 75 Watt
- Environ 57% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 1800 MHz versus 1150 MHz
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 304 versus 283
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 versus 8 October 2013 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz versus 1150 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 304 versus 283 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 250
- Environ 35% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1050 MHz versus 780 MHz
- Environ 20% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 22.4 GTexel / s versus 18.72 GTexel / s
- Environ 20% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 716.8 gflops versus 599.0 gflops
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1051 versus 896
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 7525 versus 5684
- Environ 66% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 20.161 versus 12.111
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 304.279 versus 253.178
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.655 versus 1.211
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 30.046 versus 23.777
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 96.934 versus 73.506
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2179 versus 1645
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3170 versus 2426
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 versus 1677
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2179 versus 1645
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3170 versus 2426
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 versus 1677
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz versus 780 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 22.4 GTexel / s versus 18.72 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 716.8 gflops versus 599.0 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1051 versus 896 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 7525 versus 5684 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 20.161 versus 12.111 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 304.279 versus 253.178 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.655 versus 1.211 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.046 versus 23.777 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 96.934 versus 73.506 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2179 versus 1645 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3170 versus 2426 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 versus 1677 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2179 versus 1645 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3170 versus 2426 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 versus 1677 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 250
| 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 Radeon R7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 896 | 1051 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 304 | 283 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5684 | 7525 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 12.111 | 20.161 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 253.178 | 304.279 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.211 | 1.655 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.777 | 30.046 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 73.506 | 96.934 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1645 | 2179 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2426 | 3170 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1677 | 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1645 | 2179 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2426 | 3170 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1677 | 3356 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM | AMD Radeon R7 250 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Oland | Oland |
| Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 | 8 October 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1199 | 1087 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $89 | |
| Prix maintenant | $78.34 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 27.62 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz | |
| Performance á point flottant | 599.0 gflops | 716.8 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.72 GTexel / s | 22.4 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 1,040 million |
| Stream Processors | 384 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | N / A |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Longeur | 168 mm | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | 72 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | DDR3 / GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM avec des autres
AMDRadeon R5 430 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce3 Ti200
AMDRadeon R5 430 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce4 MX 440
AMDRadeon R5 430 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce 930M
AMDRadeon R5 430 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce 920A
AMDRadeon R5 430 OEM vs
IntelHD Graphics P530
AMDRadeon R5 430 OEM vs
IntelIris Plus Graphics 940
