AMD Radeon R7 M360 versus NVIDIA NVS 5400M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 M360 and NVIDIA NVS 5400M 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 M360
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 2 ans 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 67% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1100 MHz versus 660 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 27 GTexel / s versus 10.56 GTexel / s
- 4x plus de pipelines: 384 versus 96
- 3.4x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 864.0 gflops versus 253.4 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 28 nm versus 40 nm
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- 2.2x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 4769 versus 2127
- 2.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.911 versus 5.068
- Environ 46% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.927 versus 0.635
- Environ 30% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 14.763 versus 11.384
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 49.774 versus 19.696
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1384 versus 1069
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2460 versus 2282
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1384 versus 1069
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2460 versus 2282
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 versus 1 June 2012 |
Vitesse du noyau | 1100 MHz versus 660 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 27 GTexel / s versus 10.56 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 384 versus 96 |
Performance á point flottant | 864.0 gflops versus 253.4 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
Référence | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4769 versus 2127 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.911 versus 5.068 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.927 versus 0.635 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 14.763 versus 11.384 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 49.774 versus 19.696 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1384 versus 1069 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2460 versus 2282 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1384 versus 1069 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2460 versus 2282 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA NVS 5400M
- Environ 80% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 1800 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 620 versus 581
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 186 versus 148
- Environ 63% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 229.562 versus 141.079
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1652 versus 1280
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1652 versus 1280
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 620 versus 581 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 186 versus 148 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 229.562 versus 141.079 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1652 versus 1280 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1652 versus 1280 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 M360
GPU 2: NVIDIA NVS 5400M
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 M360 | NVIDIA NVS 5400M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 581 | 620 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 148 | 186 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4769 | 2127 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.911 | 5.068 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 141.079 | 229.562 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.927 | 0.635 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 14.763 | 11.384 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 49.774 | 19.696 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1384 | 1069 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1280 | 1652 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2460 | 2282 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1384 | 1069 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1280 | 1652 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2460 | 2282 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R7 M360 | NVIDIA NVS 5400M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Fermi |
Nom de code | Meso | GF108 |
Conception | AMD Radeon R7 300 Series | |
Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 | 1 June 2012 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1436 | 1439 |
Genre | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1125 MHz | |
Unités de Compute | 6 | |
Vitesse du noyau | 1100 MHz | 660 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 864.0 gflops | 253.4 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 96 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 27 GTexel / s | 10.56 GTexel / s |
Compte de transistor | 3,100 million | 585 million |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Eyefinity | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 14.4 GB / s | 28.8 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 bit | 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1000 MHz | 1800 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Graphiques changeables | ||
ZeroCore | ||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
CUDA | ||
DirectCompute | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
Optimus |