AMD Radeon R7 450 OEM versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 450 OEM and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 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 1 ans 3 mois plus tard
- Environ 15% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 65 Watt versus 75 Watt
- Environ 80% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 4500 MHz versus 2500 MHz
- 2.2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 535 versus 247
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 versus 13 March 2015 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4500 MHz versus 2500 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 535 versus 247 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
- Environ 18% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1096 MHz versus 925 MHz
- Environ 59% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 47.04 GTexel / s versus 29.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 25% de pipelines plus haut: 640 versus 512
- Environ 59% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,505 gflops versus 947.2 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 75% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3398 versus 1938
- Environ 12% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 10734 versus 9616
- 2.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 54.294 versus 24.788
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 795.325 versus 638.196
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.692 versus 2.619
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.794 versus 41.414
- Environ 55% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 174.513 versus 112.347
- Environ 87% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5264 versus 2809
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3714 versus 3666
- Environ 87% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5264 versus 2809
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3714 versus 3666
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1096 MHz versus 925 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 47.04 GTexel / s versus 29.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 640 versus 512 |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,505 gflops versus 947.2 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3398 versus 1938 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 10734 versus 9616 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 54.294 versus 24.788 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 795.325 versus 638.196 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.692 versus 2.619 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.794 versus 41.414 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 174.513 versus 112.347 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5264 versus 2809 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 versus 3666 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5264 versus 2809 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 versus 3666 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 450 OEM
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
| 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 960M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1938 | 3398 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 535 | 247 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 9616 | 10734 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 24.788 | 54.294 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 638.196 | 795.325 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.619 | 3.692 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 41.414 | 51.794 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 112.347 | 174.513 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2809 | 5264 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3666 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2809 | 5264 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3666 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1230 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R7 450 OEM | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | Cape Verde | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 30 June 2016 | 13 March 2015 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 769 | 771 |
| Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 925 MHz | 1096 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 947.2 gflops | 1,505 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 512 | 640 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 29.6 GTexel / s | 47.04 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,500 million | 1,870 million |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1176 MHz | |
| Noyaux CUDA | 640 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
| Soutien de DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) | 1 | |
| HDMI | ||
| Soutien de l’écran analog VGA | 1 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 72 GB / s | 80 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 4500 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R7 450 OEM avec des autres
AMDRadeon R7 450 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 660
AMDRadeon R7 450 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M
AMDRadeon R7 450 OEM vs
AMDRadeon R9 M470
AMDRadeon R7 450 OEM vs
NVIDIAQuadro M1200 Mobile
AMDRadeon R7 450 OEM vs
NVIDIAQuadro P520
AMDRadeon R7 450 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce MX330
