AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM versus NVIDIA Quadro K620
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM and NVIDIA Quadro K620 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 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 4% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 18.72 GTexel / s versus 17.98 GTexel / s
- Environ 55% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 23.777 versus 15.363
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 versus 22 July 2014 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.72 GTexel / s versus 17.98 GTexel / s |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.777 versus 15.363 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K620
- Environ 45% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1058 MHz versus 730 MHz
- Environ 44% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1124 MHz versus 780 MHz
- Environ 44% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 863.2 gflops versus 599.0 gflops
- Environ 22% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 41 Watt versus 50 Watt
- 2.5x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 2220 versus 896
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 480 versus 304
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 6869 versus 5684
- Environ 83% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 22.112 versus 12.111
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 297.631 versus 253.178
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.427 versus 1.211
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 99.125 versus 73.506
- Environ 81% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2970 versus 1645
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2490 versus 2426
- Environ 99% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3329 versus 1677
- Environ 81% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2970 versus 1645
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2490 versus 2426
- Environ 99% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3329 versus 1677
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1058 MHz versus 730 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1124 MHz versus 780 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 863.2 gflops versus 599.0 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 41 Watt versus 50 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2220 versus 896 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 480 versus 304 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6869 versus 5684 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.112 versus 12.111 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 297.631 versus 253.178 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.427 versus 1.211 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 99.125 versus 73.506 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2970 versus 1645 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2490 versus 2426 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3329 versus 1677 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2970 versus 1645 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2490 versus 2426 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3329 versus 1677 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K620
| 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 Quadro K620 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 896 | 2220 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 304 | 480 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5684 | 6869 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 12.111 | 22.112 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 253.178 | 297.631 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.211 | 1.427 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 23.777 | 15.363 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 73.506 | 99.125 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1645 | 2970 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2426 | 2490 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1677 | 3329 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1645 | 2970 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2426 | 2490 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1677 | 3329 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 702 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM | NVIDIA Quadro K620 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | Oland | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 | 22 July 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1199 | 953 |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $189.89 | |
| Prix maintenant | $189.93 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 15.23 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 730 MHz | 1058 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 599.0 gflops | 863.2 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.72 GTexel / s | 17.98 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 41 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 1,870 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, DVI-I DP |
| Nombre d’écrans á la fois | 4 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
| Longeur | 160 mm | |
| Largeur | 1" (2.5 cm) | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | 128 Bit |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Desktop Management | ||
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
