AMD Radeon R7 M445 versus NVIDIA GeForce 920M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R7 M445 and NVIDIA GeForce 920M 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 M445
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 2 mois plus tard
- Environ 48% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 18.4 GTexel / s versus 12.4 GTexel / s
- Environ 98% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 588.8 gflops versus 297.6 gflops
- Environ 32% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15-25 Watt versus 33 Watt
- 2.2x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 4000 MHz versus 1800 MHz
- Environ 31% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 943 versus 721
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 176 versus 118
- Environ 45% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 5345 versus 3697
- Environ 89% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 15.765 versus 8.358
- Environ 77% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 278.624 versus 157.606
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.268 versus 0.843
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 24.335 versus 15.374
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 54.067 versus 40.443
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1913 versus 1598
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1913 versus 1598
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 15 May 2016 versus 13 March 2015 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.4 GTexel / s versus 12.4 GTexel / s |
Performance á point flottant | 588.8 gflops versus 297.6 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15-25 Watt versus 33 Watt |
Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz versus 1800 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 943 versus 721 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 176 versus 118 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5345 versus 3697 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 15.765 versus 8.358 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 278.624 versus 157.606 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.268 versus 0.843 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 24.335 versus 15.374 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 54.067 versus 40.443 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1913 versus 1598 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1913 versus 1598 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce 920M
- Environ 22% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 954 MHz versus 780 MHz
- Environ 20% de pipelines plus haut: 384 versus 320
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3636 versus 2138
- Environ 81% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 versus 1853
- Environ 70% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3636 versus 2138
- Environ 81% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 versus 1853
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 954 MHz versus 780 MHz |
Pipelines | 384 versus 320 |
Référence | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3636 versus 2138 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 1853 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3636 versus 2138 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 1853 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 M445
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 920M
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 M445 | NVIDIA GeForce 920M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 943 | 721 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 176 | 118 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 5345 | 3697 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 15.765 | 8.358 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 278.624 | 157.606 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.268 | 0.843 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 24.335 | 15.374 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 54.067 | 40.443 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1913 | 1598 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2138 | 3636 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1853 | 3358 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1913 | 1598 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2138 | 3636 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1853 | 3358 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 326 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R7 M445 | NVIDIA GeForce 920M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Kepler 2.0 |
Nom de code | Meso | GK208B |
Date de sortie | 15 May 2016 | 13 March 2015 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1309 | 1310 |
Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 920 MHz | |
Vitesse du noyau | 780 MHz | 954 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 588.8 gflops | 297.6 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 320 | 384 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 18.4 GTexel / s | 12.4 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15-25 Watt | 33 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 3,100 million | 585 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 32 GB / s | 14.4 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 4000 MHz | 1800 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
CUDA | ||
GameWorks | ||
GPU Boost | ||
Optimus | ||
Verde Drivers |