AMD Radeon R7 260X versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 260X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 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, 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, Geekbench - OpenCL.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 260X
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 6% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 115 Watt versus 122 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 43.745 versus 25.421
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 804.436 versus 734.936
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.673 versus 2.31
- Environ 81% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 64.088 versus 35.434
- 3.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 221.539 versus 56.706
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 versus 3336
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 versus 3336
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 versus 23 October 2012 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 115 Watt versus 122 Watt |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 43.745 versus 25.421 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 804.436 versus 734.936 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.673 versus 2.31 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 64.088 versus 35.434 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 221.539 versus 56.706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3336 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3336 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX
- Environ 50% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 92.2 billion / sec versus 61.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 71% de pipelines plus haut: 1536 versus 896
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4138 versus 3189
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 534 versus 522
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5683 versus 3845
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3571 versus 3485
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5683 versus 3845
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3571 versus 3485
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 92.2 billion / sec versus 61.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1536 versus 896 |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 4138 versus 3189 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 534 versus 522 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5683 versus 3845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3571 versus 3485 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5683 versus 3845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3571 versus 3485 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 260X
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| 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 260X | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3189 | 4138 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 522 | 534 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 43.745 | 25.421 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 804.436 | 734.936 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.673 | 2.31 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 64.088 | 35.434 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 221.539 | 56.706 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3845 | 5683 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3485 | 3571 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3336 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3845 | 5683 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3485 | 3571 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3336 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1481 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 12232 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R7 260X | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Kepler |
| Nom de code | Bonaire | |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Date de sortie | 8 October 2013 | 23 October 2012 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $139 | |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 648 | 650 |
| Prix maintenant | $239 | |
| Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 17.15 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1000 MHz | |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,971 gflops | |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 896 | 1536 |
| Stream Processors | 896 | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 61.6 GTexel / s | 92.2 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 115 Watt | 122 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 2,080 million | 3540 Million |
| Vitesse du noyau | 720 MHz | |
| Noyaux CUDA | 1536 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | |
| Longeur | 170 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1 x 6-pin | |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
| Options SLI | 2-way | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12 API |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 104 GB/s | 160 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 2500 MHz | |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| FXAA | ||
| SLI | ||
| TXAA | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R7 260X avec des autres
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 3850
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 680MX
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
IntelIris Pro Graphics 5200
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
AMDFirePro M5100
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
AMDFirePro W5100
AMDRadeon R7 260X vs
AMDRadeon R7 360
