AMD Radeon R7 240 versus AMD Radeon HD 7570
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 240 and AMD Radeon HD 7570 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 1 ans 9 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- Environ 20% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 60 Watt
- Environ 47% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 896 versus 611
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 272 versus 257
- 3.3x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5175 versus 1548
- 2.7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 13.344 versus 4.874
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 290.632 versus 259.769
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.262 versus 0.487
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.59 versus 14.033
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 60.326 versus 57.396
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1688 versus 1389
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1688 versus 1389
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 versus 5 January 2012 |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 60 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 896 versus 611 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 272 versus 257 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5175 versus 1548 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.344 versus 4.874 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 290.632 versus 259.769 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.262 versus 0.487 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.59 versus 14.033 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 60.326 versus 57.396 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1688 versus 1389 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1688 versus 1389 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon HD 7570
- Environ 50% de pipelines plus haut: 480 versus 320
- Environ 25% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 624 gflops versus 499.2 gflops
- Environ 39% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 1600 MHz versus 1150 MHz
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2724 versus 2342
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2724 versus 2342
Caractéristiques | |
Pipelines | 480 versus 320 |
Performance á point flottant | 624 gflops versus 499.2 gflops |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1600 MHz versus 1150 MHz |
Référence | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2724 versus 2342 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3355 versus 3353 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2724 versus 2342 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3355 versus 3353 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 240
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 7570
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 7570 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 896 | 611 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 272 | 257 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5175 | 1548 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.344 | 4.874 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 290.632 | 259.769 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.262 | 0.487 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.59 | 14.033 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 60.326 | 57.396 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1688 | 1389 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2342 | 2724 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 | 3355 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1688 | 1389 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2342 | 2724 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 | 3355 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R7 240 | AMD Radeon HD 7570 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | TeraScale 2 |
Nom de code | Oland | Turks |
Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 | 5 January 2012 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $69 | |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1245 | 1247 |
Prix maintenant | $49.99 | |
Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 24.92 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz | |
Performance á point flottant | 499.2 gflops | 624 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 320 | 480 |
Stream Processors | 320 | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 15.6 GTexel / s | 15.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 60 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 716 million |
Vitesse du noyau | 650 MHz | |
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 | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Longeur | 168 mm | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | N / A | None |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 | 11.2 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 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 | 1600 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | DDR3, GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync |