AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM versus Intel HD Graphics 4600
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM and Intel HD Graphics 4600 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 3 ans 0 mois plus tard
- Environ 83% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 730 MHz versus 400 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 18.72 GTexel / s versus 5 GTexel / s
- 19.2x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 20
- 12x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 599.0 gflops versus 50 gflops
- Environ 42% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 896 versus 630
- Environ 77% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5684 versus 3210
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 12.111 versus 8.844
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 253.178 versus 171.17
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.211 versus 1.115
- 2.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 23.777 versus 10.385
- 5.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 73.506 versus 12.361
- Environ 66% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1645 versus 988
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2426 versus 1702
- Environ 66% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1645 versus 988
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2426 versus 1702
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 versus 3 June 2013 |
Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz versus 400 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.72 GTexel / s versus 5 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 384 versus 20 |
Performance á point flottant | 599.0 gflops versus 50 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 896 versus 630 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5684 versus 3210 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 12.111 versus 8.844 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 253.178 versus 171.17 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.211 versus 1.115 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.777 versus 10.385 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 73.506 versus 12.361 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1645 versus 988 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2426 versus 1702 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1645 versus 988 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2426 versus 1702 |
Raisons pour considerer le Intel HD Graphics 4600
- Environ 60% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1250 MHz versus 780 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 22 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 11% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 45 Watt versus 50 Watt
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 314 versus 304
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2808 versus 1677
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2808 versus 1677
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse augmenté | 1250 MHz versus 780 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 22 nm versus 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt versus 50 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 314 versus 304 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2808 versus 1677 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2808 versus 1677 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4600
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 | Intel HD Graphics 4600 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 896 | 630 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 304 | 314 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5684 | 3210 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 12.111 | 8.844 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 253.178 | 171.17 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.211 | 1.115 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.777 | 10.385 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 73.506 | 12.361 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1645 | 988 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2426 | 1702 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1677 | 2808 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1645 | 988 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2426 | 1702 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1677 | 2808 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 194 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM | Intel HD Graphics 4600 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 7.5 |
Nom de code | Oland | Haswell GT2 |
Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 | 3 June 2013 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1199 | 1359 |
Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz | 1250 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz | 400 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 599.0 gflops | 50 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 22 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 20 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.72 GTexel / s | 5 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 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 |
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 |