AMD Radeon R7 240 versus AMD Radeon HD 6670
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 240 and AMD Radeon HD 6670 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 R7 240
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 5 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- Environ 32% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 66 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 2 GB versus 1 GB
- Environ 10% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 1150 MHz versus 1050 MHz
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 902 versus 724
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 274 versus 247
- 2.8x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5331 versus 1905
- 2.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 13.344 versus 4.861
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 290.632 versus 235.463
- 2.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.262 versus 0.463
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.59 versus 15.918
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 60.326 versus 38.551
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1688 versus 1564
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1688 versus 1564
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 versus 19 April 2011 |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 66 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1150 MHz versus 1050 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 902 versus 724 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 274 versus 247 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5331 versus 1905 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.344 versus 4.861 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 290.632 versus 235.463 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.262 versus 0.463 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.59 versus 15.918 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 60.326 versus 38.551 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1688 versus 1564 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 versus 3348 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1688 versus 1564 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 versus 3348 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon HD 6670
- Environ 3% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 800 MHz versus 780 MHz
- Environ 23% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 19.2 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 50% de pipelines plus haut: 480 versus 320
- Environ 54% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 768.0 gflops versus 499.2 gflops
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3260 versus 2342
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3260 versus 2342
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse augmenté | 800 MHz versus 780 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 19.2 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 480 versus 320 |
| Performance á point flottant | 768.0 gflops versus 499.2 gflops |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3260 versus 2342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3260 versus 2342 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 240
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 6670
| 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 R7 240 | AMD Radeon HD 6670 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 902 | 724 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 274 | 247 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5331 | 1905 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.344 | 4.861 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 290.632 | 235.463 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.262 | 0.463 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.59 | 15.918 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 60.326 | 38.551 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1688 | 1564 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2342 | 3260 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 | 3348 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1688 | 1564 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2342 | 3260 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 | 3348 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R7 240 | AMD Radeon HD 6670 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | TeraScale 2 |
| Nom de code | Oland | Turks |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | AMD Radeon HD 6000 Series |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 | 19 April 2011 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $69 | $99 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1236 | 1255 |
| Prix maintenant | $49.99 | $102.99 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 24.92 | 13.12 |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 499.2 gflops | 768.0 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 320 | 480 |
| Stream Processors | 320 | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 15.6 GTexel / s | 19.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 66 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 716 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 168 mm | 168 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | N / A | None |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 11 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 72 GB/s | 64 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1150 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R7 240 avec des autres
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 4250 IGP
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6370M
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6550D
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 840M
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
IntelUHD Graphics 630
AMDRadeon R7 240 vs
IntelUHD Graphics 617
