AMD Radeon R7 250 versus NVIDIA Quadro K2100M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 250 and NVIDIA Quadro K2100M 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 2 mois plus tard
- Environ 66% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 7533 versus 4544
- Environ 63% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 20.161 versus 12.383
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.655 versus 1.107
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 30.046 versus 21.761
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 96.934 versus 40.703
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 versus 23 July 2013 |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 284 versus 283 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 7533 versus 4544 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 20.161 versus 12.383 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.655 versus 1.107 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.046 versus 21.761 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 96.934 versus 40.703 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K2100M
- Environ 43% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 32.02 GTexel / s versus 22.4 GTexel / s
- Environ 50% de pipelines plus haut: 576 versus 384
- Environ 7% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 768.4 gflops versus 716.8 gflops
- Environ 36% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 55 Watt versus 75 Watt
- 2.6x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 3008 MHz versus 1150 MHz
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1359 versus 1058
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 358.892 versus 304.279
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2294 versus 2179
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3605 versus 3170
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2294 versus 2179
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3605 versus 3170
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 32.02 GTexel / s versus 22.4 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 576 versus 384 |
Performance á point flottant | 768.4 gflops versus 716.8 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 55 Watt versus 75 Watt |
Vitesse de mémoire | 3008 MHz versus 1150 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1359 versus 1058 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 358.892 versus 304.279 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2294 versus 2179 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3605 versus 3170 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3362 versus 3356 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2294 versus 2179 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3605 versus 3170 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3362 versus 3356 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 250
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2100M
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 Quadro K2100M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1058 | 1359 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 284 | 283 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 7533 | 4544 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 20.161 | 12.383 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 304.279 | 358.892 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.655 | 1.107 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.046 | 21.761 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 96.934 | 40.703 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2179 | 2294 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3170 | 3605 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3362 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2179 | 2294 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3170 | 3605 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3362 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R7 250 | NVIDIA Quadro K2100M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |
Nom de code | Oland | GK106 |
Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 | 23 July 2013 |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $89 | $84.95 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1107 | 1108 |
Prix maintenant | $78.34 | $159.99 |
Genre | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 27.62 | 10.91 |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | |
Performance á point flottant | 716.8 gflops | 768.4 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 576 |
Stream Processors | 384 | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 22.4 GTexel / s | 32.02 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 55 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 2,540 million |
Vitesse du noyau | 667 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 | ||
Display Port | 1.2 | |
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 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Shader Model | 5 | |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 72 GB/s | 48.0 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1150 MHz | 3008 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 / GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
AppAcceleration | ||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
FreeSync | ||
3D Vision Pro | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Display Management | ||
Optimus |