AMD Radeon R7 250 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 645 OEM
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 250 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 645 OEM 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 5 mois plus tard
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 2 GB versus 1 GB
- Environ 45% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 7525 versus 5202
- Environ 46% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 20.161 versus 13.806
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.655 versus 1.535
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 30.046 versus 27.524
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 96.934 versus 38.664
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2179 versus 1435
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 versus 3300
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2179 versus 1435
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 versus 3300
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 versus 22 April 2013 |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 2 GB versus 1 GB |
| Référence | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 7525 versus 5202 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 20.161 versus 13.806 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.655 versus 1.535 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.046 versus 27.524 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 96.934 versus 38.664 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2179 versus 1435 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 versus 3300 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2179 versus 1435 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 versus 3300 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 645 OEM
- Environ 77% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 39.55 GTexel / s versus 22.4 GTexel / s
- Environ 50% de pipelines plus haut: 576 versus 384
- Environ 32% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 949.2 gflops versus 716.8 gflops
- Environ 15% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 65 Watt versus 75 Watt
- 3.5x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 4000 MHz versus 1150 MHz
- Environ 79% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1883 versus 1051
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 428 versus 283
- Environ 80% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 546.51 versus 304.279
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3531 versus 3170
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3531 versus 3170
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 39.55 GTexel / s versus 22.4 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 576 versus 384 |
| Performance á point flottant | 949.2 gflops versus 716.8 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz versus 1150 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1883 versus 1051 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 428 versus 283 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 546.51 versus 304.279 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3531 versus 3170 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3531 versus 3170 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 250
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 645 OEM
| 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 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 645 OEM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1051 | 1883 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 283 | 428 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 7525 | 5202 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 20.161 | 13.806 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 304.279 | 546.51 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.655 | 1.535 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.046 | 27.524 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 96.934 | 38.664 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2179 | 1435 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3170 | 3531 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3300 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2179 | 1435 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3170 | 3531 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3300 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R7 250 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 645 OEM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |
| Nom de code | Oland | GK106 |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 | 22 April 2013 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $89 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1087 | 968 |
| Prix maintenant | $78.34 | |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 27.62 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | |
| Performance á point flottant | 716.8 gflops | 949.2 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 576 |
| Stream Processors | 384 | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 22.4 GTexel / s | 39.55 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 2,540 million |
| Vitesse du noyau | 824 MHz | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x 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 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 168 mm | 147 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | N / A | None |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
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 | 4000 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 / GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R7 250 avec des autres
AMDRadeon R7 250 vs
NVIDIATesla M2090
AMDRadeon R7 250 vs
ATIRadeon HD 5470
AMDRadeon R7 250 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8350 OEM
AMDRadeon R7 250 vs
AMDFirePro M4150
AMDRadeon R7 250 vs
IntelIris Graphics 6100
AMDRadeon R7 250 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M500M
