AMD Radeon R7 250 versus ATI FirePro V4800
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 250 and ATI FirePro V4800 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 250
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 5 mois plus tard
- Environ 45% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 22.4 GTexel / s versus 15.5 GTexel / s
- Environ 16% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 716.8 gflops versus 620.0 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 2 GB versus 1 GB
- 4.5x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 7533 versus 1672
- 3.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 20.161 versus 5.886
- 3.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.655 versus 0.529
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 30.046 versus 14.184
- Environ 71% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 96.934 versus 56.777
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2179 versus 1512
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3170 versus 2211
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 versus 3326
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2179 versus 1512
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3170 versus 2211
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 versus 3326
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 versus 26 April 2010 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 22.4 GTexel / s versus 15.5 GTexel / s |
Performance á point flottant | 716.8 gflops versus 620.0 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1 GB |
Référence | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 7533 versus 1672 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 20.161 versus 5.886 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.655 versus 0.529 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.046 versus 14.184 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 96.934 versus 56.777 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2179 versus 1512 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3170 versus 2211 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 versus 3326 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2179 versus 1512 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3170 versus 2211 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 versus 3326 |
Raisons pour considerer le ATI FirePro V4800
- Environ 4% de pipelines plus haut: 400 versus 384
- Environ 9% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 69 Watt versus 75 Watt
- 3.1x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 3600 MHz versus 1150 MHz
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1204 versus 1055
- Environ 61% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 456 versus 284
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 321.782 versus 304.279
Caractéristiques | |
Pipelines | 400 versus 384 |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 69 Watt versus 75 Watt |
Vitesse de mémoire | 3600 MHz versus 1150 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1204 versus 1055 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 456 versus 284 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 321.782 versus 304.279 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 250
GPU 2: ATI FirePro V4800
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 250 | ATI FirePro V4800 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1055 | 1204 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 284 | 456 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 7533 | 1672 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 20.161 | 5.886 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 304.279 | 321.782 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.655 | 0.529 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.046 | 14.184 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 96.934 | 56.777 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2179 | 1512 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3170 | 2211 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3326 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2179 | 1512 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3170 | 2211 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3326 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R7 250 | ATI FirePro V4800 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | TeraScale 2 |
Nom de code | Oland | Redwood |
Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 | 26 April 2010 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $89 | $189 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1109 | 1112 |
Prix maintenant | $78.34 | |
Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 27.62 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | |
Performance á point flottant | 716.8 gflops | 620.0 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 400 |
Stream Processors | 384 | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 22.4 GTexel / s | 15.5 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 69 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 627 million |
Vitesse du noyau | 775 MHz | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
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 | 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 | 1 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 72 GB/s | 57.6 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1150 MHz | 3600 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 / GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
AppAcceleration | ||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync |