AMD Radeon R7 240 versus AMD Radeon HD 6750
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 240 and AMD Radeon HD 6750 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 8 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- Environ 72% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 86 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 66% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 13.344 versus 8.039
- Environ 46% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.262 versus 0.867
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.59 versus 20.664
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 versus 21 January 2011 |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 86 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1 GB |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1150 MHz versus 1050 MHz |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.344 versus 8.039 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.262 versus 0.867 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.59 versus 20.664 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon HD 6750
- Environ 15% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 900 MHz versus 780 MHz
- Environ 62% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 25.2 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s
- 2.3x plus de pipelines: 720 versus 320
- 2x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,008.0 gflops versus 499.2 gflops
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1045 versus 902
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 280 versus 274
- Environ 87% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 544.041 versus 290.632
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 91.074 versus 60.326
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2100 versus 1688
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3378 versus 2342
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2100 versus 1688
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3378 versus 2342
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse augmenté | 900 MHz versus 780 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 25.2 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 720 versus 320 |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,008.0 gflops versus 499.2 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1045 versus 902 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 280 versus 274 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 544.041 versus 290.632 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 91.074 versus 60.326 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2100 versus 1688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3378 versus 2342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3353 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2100 versus 1688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3378 versus 2342 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3353 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 240
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 6750
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| 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 6750 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 902 | 1045 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 274 | 280 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5331 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.344 | 8.039 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 290.632 | 544.041 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.262 | 0.867 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.59 | 20.664 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 60.326 | 91.074 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1688 | 2100 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2342 | 3378 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1688 | 2100 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2342 | 3378 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R7 240 | AMD Radeon HD 6750 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | TeraScale 2 |
| Nom de code | Oland | Juniper |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | AMD Radeon HD 6000 Series |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 | 21 January 2011 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $69 | $49.99 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1236 | 1020 |
| Prix maintenant | $49.99 | $49.99 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 24.92 | 33.46 |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 499.2 gflops | 1,008.0 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 320 | 720 |
| Stream Processors | 320 | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 15.6 GTexel / s | 25.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 86 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 1,040 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| 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 | 170 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | N / A | 1x 6-pin |
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 | 73.6 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
