AMD Radeon R7 M265 versus AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 M265 and AMD Radeon R5 240 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).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 M265
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 6 mois plus tard
- Environ 23% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 900 MHz versus 730 MHz
- Environ 6% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 825 MHz versus 780 MHz
- Environ 27% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 19.8 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s
- Environ 20% de pipelines plus haut: 384 versus 320
- Environ 27% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 633.6 gflops versus 499.2 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5587 versus 4922
- Environ 73% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 282.111 versus 162.886
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.455 versus 1.009
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.704 versus 19.668
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1551 versus 1119
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2424 versus 2264
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1551 versus 1119
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2424 versus 2264
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 20 May 2014 versus 1 November 2013 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 900 MHz versus 730 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 825 MHz versus 780 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 19.8 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 384 versus 320 |
| Performance á point flottant | 633.6 gflops versus 499.2 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 546 versus 544 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5587 versus 4922 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 282.111 versus 162.886 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.455 versus 1.009 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.704 versus 19.668 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1551 versus 1119 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2424 versus 2264 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1551 versus 1119 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2424 versus 2264 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM
- Environ 80% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 1800 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 40% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 193 versus 138
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 13.569 versus 12.031
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 77.819 versus 68.392
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1284 versus 1264
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1284 versus 1264
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 193 versus 138 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 13.569 versus 12.031 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 77.819 versus 68.392 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1284 versus 1264 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1284 versus 1264 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 M265
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R5 240 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 M265 | AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 546 | 544 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 138 | 193 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 5587 | 4922 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 12.031 | 13.569 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 282.111 | 162.886 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.455 | 1.009 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.704 | 19.668 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 68.392 | 77.819 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1551 | 1119 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1264 | 1284 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2424 | 2264 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1551 | 1119 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1264 | 1284 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2424 | 2264 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R7 M265 | AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Topaz | Oland |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Date de sortie | 20 May 2014 | 1 November 2013 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1415 | 1416 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 825 MHz | 780 MHz |
| Unités de Compute | 6 | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 900 MHz | 730 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 633.6 gflops | 499.2 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 320 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 19.8 GTexel / s | 15.6 GTexel / s |
| Compte de transistor | 3,100 million | 1,040 million |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 x8 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
| Longeur | 168 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 11 | 12.0 (11_1) |
| Mantle | ||
| OpenCL | Not Listed | |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 32 GB/s | 28.8 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1000 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| DualGraphics | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| PCIe 3.0 | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Graphiques changeables | ||
| Zero Core | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R7 M265 avec des autres
AMDRadeon R7 M265 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7560D
AMDRadeon R7 M265 vs
IntelHD Graphics 4400
AMDRadeon R7 M265 vs
AMDRadeon R5 240 OEM
AMDRadeon R7 M265 vs
AMDRadeon R6 Graphics
AMDRadeon R7 M265 vs
IntelUHD Graphics 615
AMDRadeon R7 M265 vs
AMDRadeon Vega 7
