AMD Radeon R7 240 versus NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 240 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000M 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 4 mois plus tard
- Environ 10% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 50 Watt versus 55 Watt
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 270 versus 256
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5239 versus 3074
- Environ 64% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 13.344 versus 8.142
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 290.632 versus 262.321
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.262 versus 0.741
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.59 versus 16.571
- 3.3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 60.326 versus 18.406
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2342 versus 2207
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2342 versus 2207
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 versus 1 June 2012 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt versus 55 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 270 versus 256 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5239 versus 3074 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.344 versus 8.142 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 290.632 versus 262.321 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.262 versus 0.741 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.59 versus 16.571 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 60.326 versus 18.406 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2342 versus 2207 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 versus 3351 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2342 versus 2207 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 versus 3351 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
- Environ 53% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 23.84 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 20% de pipelines plus haut: 384 versus 320
- Environ 15% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 572.2 gflops versus 499.2 gflops
- Environ 57% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 1800 MHz versus 1150 MHz
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1011 versus 897
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1726 versus 1688
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1726 versus 1688
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 23.84 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 384 versus 320 |
Performance á point flottant | 572.2 gflops versus 499.2 gflops |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz versus 1150 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1011 versus 897 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1726 versus 1688 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1726 versus 1688 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 240
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
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 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 897 | 1011 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 270 | 256 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5239 | 3074 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.344 | 8.142 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 290.632 | 262.321 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.262 | 0.741 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.59 | 16.571 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 60.326 | 18.406 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1688 | 1726 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2342 | 2207 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 | 3351 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1688 | 1726 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2342 | 2207 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 | 3351 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R7 240 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |
Nom de code | Oland | GK107 |
Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 | 1 June 2012 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $69 | $265.27 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1256 | 1258 |
Prix maintenant | $49.99 | $149.95 |
Genre | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 24.92 | 8.53 |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 780 MHz | |
Performance á point flottant | 499.2 gflops | 572.2 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 320 | 384 |
Stream Processors | 320 | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 15.6 GTexel / s | 23.84 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 55 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 1,270 million |
Vitesse du noyau | 745 MHz | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
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 | MXM-A (3.0) |
Longeur | 168 mm | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | N / A | |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 72 GB/s | 28.8 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1150 MHz | 1800 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync |