AMD Radeon R5 M430 versus AMD Radeon R9 M265X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R5 M430 and AMD Radeon R9 M265X 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 M430
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 1 mois plus tard
- Environ 79% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1030 MHz versus 575 MHz
- Environ 37% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 855 MHz versus 625 MHz
- Environ 60% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 1800 MHz versus 1125 MHz
- 2.5x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 516 versus 206
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 15 May 2016 versus 21 March 2014 |
Vitesse du noyau | 1030 MHz versus 575 MHz |
Vitesse augmenté | 855 MHz versus 625 MHz |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz versus 1125 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 516 versus 206 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 M265X
- Environ 21% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 25 GTexel / s versus 20.6 GTexel / s
- 2x plus de pipelines: 640 versus 320
- Environ 21% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 800.0 gflops versus 659.2 gflops
- Environ 76% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1139 versus 649
- Environ 77% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 8850 versus 5010
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 20.633 versus 13.812
- 3.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 525.038 versus 144.604
- 2.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.169 versus 0.981
- 2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 37.076 versus 18.55
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 94.404 versus 65.872
- Environ 81% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1972 versus 1087
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1765 versus 1157
- Environ 45% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3214 versus 2212
- Environ 81% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1972 versus 1087
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1765 versus 1157
- Environ 45% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3214 versus 2212
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 25 GTexel / s versus 20.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 640 versus 320 |
Performance á point flottant | 800.0 gflops versus 659.2 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1139 versus 649 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8850 versus 5010 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 20.633 versus 13.812 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 525.038 versus 144.604 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.169 versus 0.981 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 37.076 versus 18.55 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 94.404 versus 65.872 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1972 versus 1087 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1765 versus 1157 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3214 versus 2212 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1972 versus 1087 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1765 versus 1157 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3214 versus 2212 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 M430
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M265X
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 M430 | AMD Radeon R9 M265X |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 649 | 1139 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 516 | 206 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5010 | 8850 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.812 | 20.633 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 144.604 | 525.038 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.981 | 2.169 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 18.55 | 37.076 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 65.872 | 94.404 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1087 | 1972 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1157 | 1765 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2212 | 3214 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1087 | 1972 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1157 | 1765 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2212 | 3214 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R5 M430 | AMD Radeon R9 M265X | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
Nom de code | Exo | Venus |
Date de sortie | 15 May 2016 | 21 March 2014 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1182 | 1184 |
Genre | Laptop | Desktop |
Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 855 MHz | 625 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 1030 MHz | 575 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 659.2 gflops | 800.0 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 320 | 640 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 20.6 GTexel / s | 25 GTexel / s |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 1,500 million |
Unités de Compute | 10 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Eyefinity | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 | |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 11 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 14.4 GB / s | 72 GB/s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 128 bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | 1125 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
DirectCompute 5.0 | ||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Graphiques changeables | ||
ZeroCore |