AMD Radeon R9 M395X versus AMD Radeon R9 285
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 M395X and AMD Radeon R9 285 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 M395X
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 8 mois plus tard
- Environ 14% de pipelines plus haut: 2048 versus 1792
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 4 GB versus 2 GB
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 733 versus 597
- Environ 6% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 413.329 versus 391.399
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7365 versus 6474
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3354 versus 2782
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7365 versus 6474
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3354 versus 2782
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 versus 2 September 2014 |
| Pipelines | 2048 versus 1792 |
| Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 2 GB |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 733 versus 597 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 413.329 versus 391.399 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7365 versus 6474 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 versus 2782 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7365 versus 6474 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 versus 2782 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 285
- Environ 27% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 918 MHz versus 723 MHz
- Environ 11% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 102.8 GTexel / s versus 92.54 GTexel / s
- Environ 11% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 3,290 gflops versus 2,961 gflops
- Environ 32% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 190 Watt versus 250 Watt
- 4.4x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 5500 MHz versus 1250 MHz
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 6680 versus 5195
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 72.799 versus 65.367
- Environ 84% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1474.632 versus 799.421
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.369 versus 5.718
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 91.954 versus 71.057
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3043 versus 2154
- Environ 41% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3043 versus 2154
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 918 MHz versus 723 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 102.8 GTexel / s versus 92.54 GTexel / s |
| Performance á point flottant | 3,290 gflops versus 2,961 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 190 Watt versus 250 Watt |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5500 MHz versus 1250 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6680 versus 5195 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 72.799 versus 65.367 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1474.632 versus 799.421 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.369 versus 5.718 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 91.954 versus 71.057 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3043 versus 2154 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3043 versus 2154 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 M395X
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 285
| 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 M395X | AMD Radeon R9 285 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5195 | 6680 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 733 | 597 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 27719 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 65.367 | 72.799 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 799.421 | 1474.632 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.718 | 6.369 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 71.057 | 91.954 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 413.329 | 391.399 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7365 | 6474 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2154 | 3043 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 | 2782 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7365 | 6474 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2154 | 3043 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 | 2782 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2778 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon R9 M395X | AMD Radeon R9 285 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 3.0 |
| Nom de code | Amethyst | Tonga |
| Conception | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series |
| Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 | 2 September 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 467 | 464 |
| Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $249 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse du noyau | 723 MHz | 918 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,961 gflops | 3,290 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 2048 | 1792 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 92.54 GTexel / s | 102.8 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | 190 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 5,000 million | 5,000 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | 2x 6-pin |
| Longeur | 221 mm | |
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 | 160.0 GB / s | 176.0 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 bit | 256 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1250 MHz | 5500 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| DualGraphics | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Graphiques changeables | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon R9 M395X avec des autres
AMDRadeon R9 M395X vs
ATIRadeon X700 SE
AMDRadeon R9 M395X vs
ATIFireGL V7350
AMDRadeon R9 M395X vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9300 SE
AMDRadeon R9 M395X vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 780
AMDRadeon R9 M395X vs
AMDRadeon R9 285
AMDRadeon R9 M395X vs
IntelUHD Graphics P750
