AMD Radeon R9 M375 versus AMD Radeon R7 240
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 M375 and AMD Radeon R7 240 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 M375
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 6 mois plus tard
- Environ 30% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1015 MHz versus 780 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 40.6 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s
- 2x plus de pipelines: 640 versus 320
- 2.6x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,299 gflops versus 499.2 gflops
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 9% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 973 versus 896
- Environ 93% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 10235 versus 5292
- 2.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 29.048 versus 13.344
- Environ 60% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.024 versus 1.262
- Environ 67% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.994 versus 21.59
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 142.872 versus 60.326
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2227 versus 1688
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2227 versus 1688
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 versus 8 October 2013 |
Vitesse augmenté | 1015 MHz versus 780 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 40.6 GTexel / s versus 15.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 640 versus 320 |
Performance á point flottant | 1,299 gflops versus 499.2 gflops |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 973 versus 896 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 10235 versus 5292 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 29.048 versus 13.344 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.024 versus 1.262 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.994 versus 21.59 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 142.872 versus 60.326 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2227 versus 1688 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2227 versus 1688 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R7 240
- Environ 5% plus haut de vitesse de mémoire: 1150 MHz versus 1100 MHz
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 271 versus 161
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 290.632 versus 272.547
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2342 versus 1850
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 versus 2112
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2342 versus 1850
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 versus 2112
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1150 MHz versus 1100 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 271 versus 161 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 290.632 versus 272.547 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2342 versus 1850 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 versus 2112 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2342 versus 1850 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 versus 2112 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 M375
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 240
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 R9 M375 | AMD Radeon R7 240 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 973 | 896 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 161 | 271 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 10235 | 5292 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 29.048 | 13.344 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 272.547 | 290.632 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.024 | 1.262 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.994 | 21.59 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 142.872 | 60.326 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2227 | 1688 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1850 | 2342 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2112 | 3353 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2227 | 1688 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1850 | 2342 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2112 | 3353 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R9 M375 | AMD Radeon R7 240 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 1.0 |
Nom de code | Tropo | Oland |
Conception | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series |
Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 | 8 October 2013 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1244 | 1245 |
Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $69 | |
Prix maintenant | $49.99 | |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 24.92 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1015 MHz | 780 MHz |
Unités de Compute | 10 | |
Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz | |
Performance á point flottant | 1,299 gflops | 499.2 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 640 | 320 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 40.6 GTexel / s | 15.6 GTexel / s |
Compte de transistor | 1,500 million | 1,040 million |
Stream Processors | 320 | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
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 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Longeur | 168 mm | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | N / A | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12 |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | 72 GB/s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 bit | 128 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1100 MHz | 1150 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
DualGraphics | ||
Enduro | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Graphiques changeables | ||
ZeroCore | ||
CrossFire | ||
DDMA audio |