AMD Radeon R9 290 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 290 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 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 R9 290
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 5 mois plus tard
- Environ 10% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 947 MHz versus 863 MHz
- Environ 11% de pipelines plus haut: 2560 versus 2304
- Environ 17% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 4,849 gflops versus 4,156 gflops
- Environ 33% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 4 GB versus 3 GB
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 8210 versus 7986
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 763 versus 590
- 4.4x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 102277 versus 23233
- Environ 55% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 89.325 versus 57.735
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1366.314 versus 1269.688
- Environ 82% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 10.034 versus 5.505
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 98.765 versus 37.407
- 3.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 540.645 versus 174.323
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3699 versus 2777
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 5 November 2013 versus 23 May 2013 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 947 MHz versus 863 MHz |
| Pipelines | 2560 versus 2304 |
| Performance á point flottant | 4,849 gflops versus 4,156 gflops |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 3 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 8210 versus 7986 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 763 versus 590 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 102277 versus 23233 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 89.325 versus 57.735 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1366.314 versus 1269.688 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 10.034 versus 5.505 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 98.765 versus 37.407 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 540.645 versus 174.323 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3699 versus 2777 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780
- Environ 6% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 160.5 billion / sec versus 151.5 GTexel / s
- Environ 10% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 250 Watt versus 275 Watt
- Environ 20% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 6008 MHz versus 5000 MHz
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 9064 versus 6300
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 9064 versus 6300
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 160.5 billion / sec versus 151.5 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt versus 275 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6008 MHz versus 5000 MHz |
| Référence | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9064 versus 6300 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 versus 3711 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3354 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9064 versus 6300 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 versus 3711 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3354 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 290
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780
| 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 |
|
|
| Nom | AMD Radeon R9 290 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 8210 | 7986 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 763 | 590 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 102277 | 23233 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 89.325 | 57.735 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1366.314 | 1269.688 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 10.034 | 5.505 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 98.765 | 37.407 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 540.645 | 174.323 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6300 | 9064 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3711 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6300 | 9064 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3711 | 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3699 | 2777 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R9 290 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Kepler |
| Nom de code | Hawaii | GK110 |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
| Date de sortie | 5 November 2013 | 23 May 2013 |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $399 | $649 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 339 | 451 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Prix maintenant | $740.99 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 12.94 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 947 MHz | 863 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 4,849 gflops | 4,156 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 2560 | 2304 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 151.5 GTexel / s | 160.5 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 275 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 6,200 million | 7,080 million |
| Vitesse augmenté | 900 MHz | |
| Noyaux CUDA | 2304 | |
| Température maximale du GPU | 95 °C | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI..., 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| VGA | ||
| Contribution d’audio pour HDMI | Internal | |
| Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Résolution VGA maximale | 2048x1536 | |
| Soutien de plusiers moniteurs | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 275 mm | 10.5" (26.7 cm) |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | One 8-pin and one 6-pin |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Hauteur | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
| Énergie du systeme minimum recommandé | 600 Watt | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 320.0 GB / s | 288.4 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 512 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5000 MHz | 6008 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
| 3D Gaming | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision Live | ||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Blu Ray 3D | ||
| CUDA | ||
| FXAA | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| PhysX | ||
| TXAA | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R9 290 avec des autres
AMDRadeon R9 290 vs
ATIFireMV 2260
AMDRadeon R9 290 vs
NVIDIAQuadro CX
AMDRadeon R9 290 vs
AMDFirePro W9000
AMDRadeon R9 290 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX TITAN Z
AMDRadeon R9 290 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M5000
AMDRadeon R9 290 vs
AMDRadeon RX 580
