AMD Radeon R7 M370 versus AMD Radeon R9 280X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 M370 and AMD Radeon R9 280X 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 M370
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 6 mois plus tard
- Environ 33% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 4 GB versus 3 GB
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 versus 8 October 2013 |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 3 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 676 versus 675 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 280X
- Environ 4% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1000 MHz versus 960 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 128.0 GTexel / s versus 23.04 GTexel / s
- 5.3x plus de pipelines: 2048 versus 384
- 5.6x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 4,096 gflops versus 737.3 gflops
- 4.3x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 6138 versus 1418
- 5.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 89.187 versus 17.26
- 3x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1434.496 versus 476.075
- 4.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 7.656 versus 1.653
- 2.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 87.459 versus 30.082
- 7x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 493.57 versus 70.174
- 5.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 9603 versus 1747
- 2.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3700 versus 1484
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 versus 2449
- 5.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 9603 versus 1747
- 2.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3700 versus 1484
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 versus 2449
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse augmenté | 1000 MHz versus 960 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 128.0 GTexel / s versus 23.04 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 2048 versus 384 |
Performance á point flottant | 4,096 gflops versus 737.3 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 6138 versus 1418 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 89.187 versus 17.26 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1434.496 versus 476.075 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.656 versus 1.653 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 87.459 versus 30.082 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 493.57 versus 70.174 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9603 versus 1747 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3700 versus 1484 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 versus 2449 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9603 versus 1747 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3700 versus 1484 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 versus 2449 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 M370
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 280X
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
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 M370 | AMD Radeon R9 280X |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1418 | 6138 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 676 | 675 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 7070 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 17.26 | 89.187 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 476.075 | 1434.496 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.653 | 7.656 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.082 | 87.459 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 70.174 | 493.57 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1747 | 9603 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1484 | 3700 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2449 | 3357 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1747 | 9603 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1484 | 3700 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2449 | 3357 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2351 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R7 M370 | AMD Radeon R9 280X | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
Nom de code | Litho | Tahiti |
Conception | AMD Radeon R7 300 Series | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series |
Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 | 8 October 2013 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 933 | 372 |
Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $299 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 960 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 900 MHz | |
Performance á point flottant | 737.3 gflops | 4,096 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 2048 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 23.04 GTexel / s | 128.0 GTexel / s |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 4,313 million |
Stream Processors | 2048 | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Eyefinity | ||
Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
HDMI | ||
VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Longeur | 275 mm | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12 |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 3 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 73.6 GB / s | 288 GB/s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 384 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1000 MHz | |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PCIe 3.0 | ||
PowerTune | ||
Graphiques changeables | ||
Zero Core | ||
ZeroCore | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio | ||
LiquidVR | ||
TressFX | ||
TrueAudio | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) |