AMD Radeon R5 M255 versus NVIDIA Quadro K600
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R5 M255 and NVIDIA Quadro K600 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R5 M255
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 7 mois plus tard
- Environ 6% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 925 MHz versus 876 MHz
- Environ 61% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 22.56 GTexel / s versus 14.02 GTexel / s
- Environ 67% de pipelines plus haut: 320 versus 192
- 2.1x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 721.9 gflops versus 336.4 gflops
- 4x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 1 GB
- 2.6x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 4715 versus 1816
- 2.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.288 versus 6.367
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 166.596 versus 118.389
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.988 versus 0.396
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 20.164 versus 7.921
- 7.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 66.631 versus 9.393
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1459 versus 1227
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 versus 2261
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1459 versus 1227
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 versus 2261
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 12 October 2014 versus 1 March 2013 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 925 MHz versus 876 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 22.56 GTexel / s versus 14.02 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 320 versus 192 |
| Performance á point flottant | 721.9 gflops versus 336.4 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 1 GB |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4715 versus 1816 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.288 versus 6.367 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 166.596 versus 118.389 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.988 versus 0.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 20.164 versus 7.921 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 66.631 versus 9.393 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1459 versus 1227 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 versus 2261 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1459 versus 1227 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 versus 2261 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K600
- Environ 78% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 1782 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 731 versus 545
- 2.1x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 277 versus 134
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1745 versus 1715
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1745 versus 1715
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1782 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 731 versus 545 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 277 versus 134 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1745 versus 1715 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1745 versus 1715 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 M255
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K600
| 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 M255 | NVIDIA Quadro K600 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 545 | 731 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 134 | 277 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4715 | 1816 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.288 | 6.367 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 166.596 | 118.389 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.988 | 0.396 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 20.164 | 7.921 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 66.631 | 9.393 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1459 | 1227 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1715 | 1745 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 2261 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1459 | 1227 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1715 | 1745 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 2261 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R5 M255 | NVIDIA Quadro K600 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Kepler |
| Nom de code | Topaz | GK107 |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R5 200 Series | |
| Date de sortie | 12 October 2014 | 1 March 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1364 | 1366 |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $199 | |
| Prix maintenant | $78.99 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 11.66 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 940 MHz | |
| Unités de Compute | 5 | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 925 MHz | 876 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 721.9 gflops | 336.4 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 320 | 192 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 22.56 GTexel / s | 14.02 GTexel / s |
| Compte de transistor | 3,100 million | 1,270 million |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 41 Watt | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 x8 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 160 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 11 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| Mantle | ||
| OpenCL | Not Listed | |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 16 GB/s | 28.51 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1000 MHz | 1782 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| DualGraphics | ||
| Enduro | ||
| HD3D | ||
| Powerplay | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Graphiques changeables | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R5 M255 avec des autres
AMDRadeon R5 M255 vs
ATIRadeon IGP 340M
AMDRadeon R5 M255 vs
ATIRadeon HD 5570
AMDRadeon R5 M255 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K600
AMDRadeon R5 M255 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 820M
AMDRadeon R5 M255 vs
IntelHD Graphics
AMDRadeon R5 M255 vs
AMDRadeon R6 M435DX
