AMD Radeon R7 450 OEM versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 450 OEM and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 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 450 OEM
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 4 mois plus tard
- 900x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 4500 MHz versus 5.4 GB/s
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 530 versus 521
- Environ 56% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 41.414 versus 26.532
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 versus 3329
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 versus 3329
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 versus 18 February 2014 |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4500 MHz versus 5.4 GB/s |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 530 versus 521 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 41.414 versus 26.532 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3329 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3329 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti
- Environ 10% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1020 MHz versus 925 MHz
- Environ 47% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 43.4 GTexel / s versus 29.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 25% de pipelines plus haut: 640 versus 512
- Environ 47% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,389 gflops versus 947.2 gflops
- Environ 8% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 60 Watt versus 65 Watt
- 2.1x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3901 versus 1901
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 11526 versus 9694
- Environ 71% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 42.463 versus 24.788
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 642.715 versus 638.196
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.933 versus 2.619
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 133.458 versus 112.347
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4843 versus 2809
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4843 versus 2809
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1020 MHz versus 925 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 43.4 GTexel / s versus 29.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 640 versus 512 |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,389 gflops versus 947.2 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 60 Watt versus 65 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3901 versus 1901 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 11526 versus 9694 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 42.463 versus 24.788 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 642.715 versus 638.196 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.933 versus 2.619 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 133.458 versus 112.347 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4843 versus 2809 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3683 versus 3666 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4843 versus 2809 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3683 versus 3666 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 450 OEM
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti
| 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 450 OEM | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1901 | 3901 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 530 | 521 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9694 | 11526 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 24.788 | 42.463 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 638.196 | 642.715 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.619 | 2.933 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 41.414 | 26.532 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 112.347 | 133.458 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2809 | 4843 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3666 | 3683 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3329 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2809 | 4843 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3666 | 3683 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3329 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 117 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R7 450 OEM | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | Cape Verde | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 | 18 February 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 764 | 707 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $149 | |
| Prix maintenant | $299.01 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 15.02 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 925 MHz | 1020 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 947.2 gflops | 1,389 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 512 | 640 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 29.6 GTexel / s | 43.4 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,500 million | 1,870 million |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1085 MHz | |
| Noyaux CUDA | 640 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI, One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini... |
| Contribution d’audio pour HDMI | Internal | |
| Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Résolution VGA maximale | 2048x1536 | |
| Soutien de plusiers moniteurs | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | None |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Hauteur | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
| Longeur | 5.7" (14.5 cm) | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 72 GB / s | 86.4 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4500 MHz | 5.4 GB/s |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Gaming | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision Live | ||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Blu Ray 3D | ||
| CUDA | ||
| FXAA | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| TXAA | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R7 450 OEM avec des autres
AMDRadeon R7 450 OEM vs
ATIMobility FireGL V3200
AMDRadeon R7 450 OEM vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 3450
AMDRadeon R7 450 OEM vs
NVIDIATesla C2075
AMDRadeon R7 450 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
AMDRadeon R7 450 OEM vs
NVIDIAQuadro K5100M
AMDRadeon R7 450 OEM vs
AMDRadeon R9 M470
