AMD Radeon R9 M395X versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 M395X 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 M395X
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 33% plus de taille maximale de mémoire: 4 GB versus 3 GB
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 733 versus 587
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 27697 versus 23230
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 65.367 versus 57.735
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.718 versus 5.505
- Environ 90% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 71.057 versus 37.407
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 413.329 versus 174.323
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 versus 23 May 2013 |
Taille de mémore maximale | 4 GB versus 3 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 733 versus 587 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 27697 versus 23230 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 65.367 versus 57.735 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.718 versus 5.505 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 71.057 versus 37.407 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 413.329 versus 174.323 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780
- Environ 19% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 863 MHz versus 723 MHz
- Environ 73% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 160.5 billion / sec versus 92.54 GTexel / s
- Environ 13% de pipelines plus haut: 2304 versus 2048
- Environ 40% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 4,156 gflops versus 2,961 gflops
- 4.8x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 6008 MHz versus 1250 MHz
- Environ 54% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 8007 versus 5195
- Environ 59% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1269.688 versus 799.421
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 9064 versus 7365
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3714 versus 2154
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 9064 versus 7365
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3714 versus 2154
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 863 MHz versus 723 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 160.5 billion / sec versus 92.54 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 2304 versus 2048 |
Performance á point flottant | 4,156 gflops versus 2,961 gflops |
Vitesse de mémoire | 6008 MHz versus 1250 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 8007 versus 5195 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1269.688 versus 799.421 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9064 versus 7365 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 versus 2154 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 versus 3354 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9064 versus 7365 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 versus 2154 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 versus 3354 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 M395X
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) |
|
|
Nom | AMD Radeon R9 M395X | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5195 | 8007 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 733 | 587 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 27697 | 23230 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 65.367 | 57.735 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 799.421 | 1269.688 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.718 | 5.505 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 71.057 | 37.407 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 413.329 | 174.323 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7365 | 9064 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2154 | 3714 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 | 3358 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7365 | 9064 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2154 | 3714 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 | 3358 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2797 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R9 M395X | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Kepler |
Nom de code | Amethyst | GK110 |
Conception | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | |
Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 | 23 May 2013 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 467 | 468 |
Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $649 | |
Prix maintenant | $740.99 | |
Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 12.94 | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse du noyau | 723 MHz | 863 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 2,961 gflops | 4,156 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 2048 | 2304 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 92.54 GTexel / s | 160.5 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | 250 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 5,000 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 | No outputs | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI..., 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Eyefinity | ||
Contribution d’audio pour HDMI | Internal | |
Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Résolution VGA maximale | 2048x1536 | |
Soutien de plusiers moniteurs | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 3.0 |
Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Taille du laptop | large | |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | One 8-pin and one 6-pin |
Hauteur | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
Longeur | 10.5" (26.7 cm) | |
Énergie du systeme minimum recommandé | 600 Watt | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.3 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 3 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 160.0 GB / s | 288.4 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 bit | 384 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1250 MHz | 6008 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Graphiques changeables | ||
TrueAudio | ||
ZeroCore | ||
3D Gaming | ||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision Live | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
Blu Ray 3D | ||
CUDA | ||
FXAA | ||
GPU Boost | ||
PhysX | ||
TXAA |