AMD Radeon R9 M395X versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon R9 M395X and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M 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 6 mois plus tard
- Environ 79% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 92.54 GTexel / s versus 51.84 GTexel / s
- Environ 33% de pipelines plus haut: 2048 versus 1536
- Environ 78% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,961 gflops versus 1,659 gflops
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 733 versus 491
- Environ 16% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 27734 versus 23826
- 3.9x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 71.057 versus 18.431
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 413.329 versus 308.42
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 versus 7 October 2014 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 92.54 GTexel / s versus 51.84 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 2048 versus 1536 |
Performance á point flottant | 2,961 gflops versus 1,659 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 733 versus 491 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 27734 versus 23826 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 71.057 versus 18.431 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 413.329 versus 308.42 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 versus 3342 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 versus 3342 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M
- Environ 44% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 1038 MHz versus 723 MHz
- 2.5x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 100 Watt versus 250 Watt
- 2x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 8 GB versus 4 GB
- 2x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 2500 MHz versus 1250 MHz
- Environ 42% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 7351 versus 5195
- Environ 42% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 92.634 versus 65.367
- Environ 43% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1146.534 versus 799.421
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.776 versus 5.718
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 10572 versus 7365
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3695 versus 2154
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 10572 versus 7365
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3695 versus 2154
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 1038 MHz versus 723 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt versus 250 Watt |
Taille de mémore maximale | 8 GB versus 4 GB |
Vitesse de mémoire | 2500 MHz versus 1250 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 7351 versus 5195 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 92.634 versus 65.367 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1146.534 versus 799.421 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.776 versus 5.718 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 10572 versus 7365 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3695 versus 2154 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 10572 versus 7365 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3695 versus 2154 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 M395X
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M
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 980M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 5195 | 7351 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 733 | 491 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 27734 | 23826 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 65.367 | 92.634 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 799.421 | 1146.534 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.718 | 6.776 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 71.057 | 18.431 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 413.329 | 308.42 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7365 | 10572 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2154 | 3695 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3354 | 3342 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7365 | 10572 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2154 | 3695 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3354 | 3342 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 649 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon R9 M395X | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |
Nom de code | Amethyst | GM204 |
Conception | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | |
Date de sortie | 5 May 2015 | 7 October 2014 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 461 | 462 |
Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse du noyau | 723 MHz | 1038 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 2,961 gflops | 1,659 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 2048 | 1536 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 92.54 GTexel / s | 51.84 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | 100 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 5,000 million | 5,200 million |
Vitesse augmenté | 1127 MHz | |
Noyaux CUDA | 1536 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Eyefinity | ||
Soutien de DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) | 1 | |
Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
HDMI | ||
Soutien de l’écran analog VGA | 1 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 3.0 |
Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
Taille du laptop | large | large |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Options SLI | 1 | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (12_1) |
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.1 |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 4 GB | 8 GB |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 160.0 GB / s | 160 GB / s |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 bit | 256 Bit |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1250 MHz | 2500 MHz |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
DualGraphics | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Graphiques changeables | ||
TrueAudio | ||
ZeroCore | ||
Ansel | ||
BatteryBoost | ||
CUDA | ||
DSR | ||
GameStream | ||
GameWorks | ||
GeForce Experience | ||
GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
GPU Boost | ||
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
Optimus | ||
SLI |