AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM versus AMD Radeon R7 250X
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM and AMD Radeon R7 250X 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 360 OEM
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 2 mois plus tard
- Environ 5% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1050 MHz versus 1000 MHz
- Environ 33% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 50.4 GTexel / s versus 38 GTexel / s
- Environ 20% de pipelines plus haut: 768 versus 640
- Environ 33% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,613 gflops versus 1,216 gflops
- 4x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 6500 MHz versus 1625 MHz
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3032 versus 2269
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 39.283 versus 32.22
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 815.354 versus 638.532
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.437 versus 2.963
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 63.718 versus 51.987
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 171.258 versus 151.963
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4468 versus 3916
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4468 versus 3916
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 versus 13 February 2014 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz versus 1000 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 50.4 GTexel / s versus 38 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 768 versus 640 |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,613 gflops versus 1,216 gflops |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6500 MHz versus 1625 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3032 versus 2269 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 39.283 versus 32.22 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 815.354 versus 638.532 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.437 versus 2.963 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 63.718 versus 51.987 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 171.258 versus 151.963 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4468 versus 3916 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4468 versus 3916 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 250X
- Environ 6% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 80 Watt versus 85 Watt
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 637 versus 460
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3716 versus 3667
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 versus 3340
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3716 versus 3667
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 versus 3340
| Caractéristiques | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 80 Watt versus 85 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 637 versus 460 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3716 versus 3667 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3340 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3716 versus 3667 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3340 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 250X
| 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 R9 360 OEM | AMD Radeon R7 250X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3032 | 2269 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 460 | 637 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 14269 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 39.283 | 32.22 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 815.354 | 638.532 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.437 | 2.963 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 63.718 | 51.987 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 171.258 | 151.963 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4468 | 3916 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3667 | 3716 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3340 | 3358 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4468 | 3916 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3667 | 3716 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3340 | 3358 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM | AMD Radeon R7 250X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Nom de code | Tobago | Cape Verde |
| Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 | 13 February 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 663 | 664 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $99 | |
| Prix maintenant | $260.70 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 11.25 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz | |
| Performance á point flottant | 1,613 gflops | 1,216 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 768 | 640 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 50.4 GTexel / s | 38 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 85 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 2,080 million | 1,500 million |
| Stream Processors | 640 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Soutien de DisplayPort | ||
| Soutien de Dual-link DVI | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 165 mm | 210 mm |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | 1x 6-pin | 1 x 6-pin |
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 104.0 GB / s | 96 GB/s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 6500 MHz | 1625 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R9 360 OEM avec des autres
AMDRadeon R9 360 OEM vs
NVIDIAGeForce PCX 5900
AMDRadeon R9 360 OEM vs
AMDRadeon HD 7950 Mac Edition
AMDRadeon R9 360 OEM vs
NVIDIATesla K40m
AMDRadeon R9 360 OEM vs
AMDRadeon R7 250X
AMDRadeon R9 360 OEM vs
IntelIris Pro Graphics P580
AMDRadeon R9 360 OEM vs
IntelUHD Graphics 730
