AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM versus NVIDIA GeForce 940M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM and NVIDIA GeForce 940M 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 3 mois plus tard
- Environ 95% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 302 versus 155
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 253.178 versus 168.449
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 23.777 versus 21.837
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 versus 13 March 2015 |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 302 versus 155 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 253.178 versus 168.449 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.777 versus 21.837 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce 940M
- Environ 47% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1072 MHz versus 730 MHz
- Environ 51% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1176 MHz versus 780 MHz
- Environ 51% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 28.22 GTexel / s versus 18.72 GTexel / s
- Environ 51% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 903.2 gflops versus 599.0 gflops
- Environ 52% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 33 Watt versus 50 Watt
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1127 versus 907
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5965 versus 5679
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 25.98 versus 12.111
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.307 versus 1.211
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 101.399 versus 73.506
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2132 versus 1645
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3065 versus 2426
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 versus 1677
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2132 versus 1645
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3065 versus 2426
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 versus 1677
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 1072 MHz versus 730 MHz |
Vitesse augmenté | 1176 MHz versus 780 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 28.22 GTexel / s versus 18.72 GTexel / s |
Performance á point flottant | 903.2 gflops versus 599.0 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 33 Watt versus 50 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1127 versus 907 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5965 versus 5679 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.98 versus 12.111 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.307 versus 1.211 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 101.399 versus 73.506 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2132 versus 1645 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3065 versus 2426 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 versus 1677 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2132 versus 1645 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3065 versus 2426 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 versus 1677 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 940M
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 | NVIDIA GeForce 940M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 907 | 1127 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 302 | 155 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5679 | 5965 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 12.111 | 25.98 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 253.178 | 168.449 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.211 | 1.307 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.777 | 21.837 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 73.506 | 101.399 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1645 | 2132 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2426 | 3065 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1677 | 3357 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1645 | 2132 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2426 | 3065 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1677 | 3357 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 506 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM | NVIDIA GeForce 940M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |
Nom de code | Oland | GM108 |
Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 | 13 March 2015 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1208 | 1211 |
Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz | 1176 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz | 1072 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 599.0 gflops | 903.2 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.72 GTexel / s | 28.22 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 33 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 1,870 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 3.0 x8 |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | 14.4 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 1800 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
CUDA | ||
GameWorks | ||
GeForce Experience | ||
GPU Boost | ||
Optimus |