AMD Radeon R7 M265 versus Intel HD Graphics 4400
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 M265 and Intel HD Graphics 4400 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 M265
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 8 mois plus tard
- 2.6x plus de vitesse du noyau: 900 MHz versus 350 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 19.8 GTexel / s versus 4.6 GTexel / s
- 19.2x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 20
- 13.8x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 633.6 gflops versus 46 gflops
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 546 versus 522
- 2.6x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5587 versus 2141
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 12.031 versus 7.844
- Environ 82% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 282.111 versus 154.696
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.455 versus 0.958
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 21.704 versus 9.084
- 8.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 68.392 versus 8.335
- Environ 90% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1551 versus 817
- Environ 90% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1551 versus 817
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 20 May 2014 versus 3 September 2013 |
Vitesse du noyau | 900 MHz versus 350 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 19.8 GTexel / s versus 4.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 384 versus 20 |
Performance á point flottant | 633.6 gflops versus 46 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 546 versus 522 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5587 versus 2141 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 12.031 versus 7.844 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 282.111 versus 154.696 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.455 versus 0.958 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.704 versus 9.084 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 68.392 versus 8.335 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1551 versus 817 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1551 versus 817 |
Raisons pour considerer le Intel HD Graphics 4400
- Environ 39% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1150 MHz versus 825 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 22 nm versus 28 nm
- 2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 277 versus 138
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1381 versus 1264
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3044 versus 2424
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1381 versus 1264
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3044 versus 2424
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz versus 825 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 22 nm versus 28 nm |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 277 versus 138 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1381 versus 1264 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3044 versus 2424 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1381 versus 1264 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3044 versus 2424 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 M265
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4400
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 | Intel HD Graphics 4400 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 546 | 522 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 138 | 277 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5587 | 2141 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 12.031 | 7.844 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 282.111 | 154.696 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.455 | 0.958 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 21.704 | 9.084 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 68.392 | 8.335 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1551 | 817 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1264 | 1381 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2424 | 3044 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1551 | 817 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1264 | 1381 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2424 | 3044 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 152 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R7 M265 | Intel HD Graphics 4400 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Generation 7.5 |
Nom de code | Topaz | Haswell GT2 |
Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
Date de sortie | 20 May 2014 | 3 September 2013 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1413 | 1415 |
Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 825 MHz | 1150 MHz |
Unités de Compute | 6 | |
Vitesse du noyau | 900 MHz | 350 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 633.6 gflops | 46 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 22 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 20 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 19.8 GTexel / s | 4.6 GTexel / s |
Compte de transistor | 3,100 million | 392 million |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 x8 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 11 | 12.0 (11_1) |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.3 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 32 GB/s | |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1000 MHz | |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 1 |
Technologies |
||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PCIe 3.0 | ||
PowerTune | ||
Graphiques changeables | ||
Zero Core | ||
ZeroCore | ||
Quick Sync |