AMD Radeon R7 M370 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 M370 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M 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 M370
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 1 mois plus tard
- Environ 45% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 900 MHz versus 620 MHz
- 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 PassMark - G2D Mark: 676 versus 314
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 6978 versus 6362
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 70.174 versus 59.007
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 versus 22 March 2012 |
Vitesse du noyau | 900 MHz versus 620 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm versus 40 nm |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 676 versus 314 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 6978 versus 6362 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 70.174 versus 59.007 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M
- Environ 72% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 39.7 billion / sec versus 23.04 GTexel / s
- Environ 29% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 952.3 gflops versus 737.3 gflops
- Environ 50% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 1500 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1928 versus 1418
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 22.12 versus 17.26
- Environ 40% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 664.78 versus 476.075
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.003 versus 1.653
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 33.983 versus 30.082
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2649 versus 1747
- 2.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3690 versus 1484
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3347 versus 2449
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2649 versus 1747
- 2.5x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3690 versus 1484
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3347 versus 2449
Caractéristiques | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 39.7 billion / sec versus 23.04 GTexel / s |
Performance á point flottant | 952.3 gflops versus 737.3 gflops |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1500 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1928 versus 1418 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 22.12 versus 17.26 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 664.78 versus 476.075 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.003 versus 1.653 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 33.983 versus 30.082 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2649 versus 1747 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3690 versus 1484 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3347 versus 2449 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2649 versus 1747 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3690 versus 1484 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3347 versus 2449 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 M370
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M
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 M370 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1418 | 1928 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 676 | 314 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 6978 | 6362 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 17.26 | 22.12 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 476.075 | 664.78 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.653 | 2.003 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.082 | 33.983 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 70.174 | 59.007 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1747 | 2649 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1484 | 3690 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2449 | 3347 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1747 | 2649 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1484 | 3690 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2449 | 3347 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R7 M370 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi 2.0 |
Nom de code | Litho | GF114 |
Conception | AMD Radeon R7 300 Series | |
Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 | 22 March 2012 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 948 | 951 |
Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 960 MHz | |
Vitesse du noyau | 900 MHz | 620 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 737.3 gflops | 952.3 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 23.04 GTexel / s | 39.7 billion / sec |
Compte de transistor | 1,040 million | 1,950 million |
Noyaux CUDA | 384 | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Eyefinity | ||
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Résolution VGA maximale | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0 |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | large |
Options SLI | 2-way | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12 API |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.1 |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 73.6 GB / s | 96.0 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 256bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1000 MHz | 1500 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 | ||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
CUDA | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
FXAA | ||
SLI |