AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX 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 RX Vega 11
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 5 ans 4 mois plus tard
- Environ 15% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 55 GTexel / s versus 48.0 billion / sec
- Environ 40% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,760 gflops versus 1,256 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 54% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 65 Watt versus 100 Watt
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 527 versus 382
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 14684 versus 10773
- 2.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 40.991 versus 18.251
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.196 versus 1.9
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 54.784 versus 36.241
- 4.2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 262.35 versus 62.895
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 13 February 2018 versus 1 October 2012 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 55 GTexel / s versus 48.0 billion / sec |
Performance á point flottant | 1,760 gflops versus 1,256 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt versus 100 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 527 versus 382 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 14684 versus 10773 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 40.991 versus 18.251 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.196 versus 1.9 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 54.784 versus 36.241 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 262.35 versus 62.895 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX
- 2x plus de vitesse du noyau: 600 MHz versus 300 MHz
- Environ 36% de pipelines plus haut: 960 versus 704
- Environ 29% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 2745 versus 2120
- Environ 82% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 665.068 versus 364.578
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4175 versus 3455
- Environ 82% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3383 versus 1857
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3334 versus 3107
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4175 versus 3455
- Environ 82% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3383 versus 1857
- Environ 7% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3334 versus 3107
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 600 MHz versus 300 MHz |
Pipelines | 960 versus 704 |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2745 versus 2120 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 665.068 versus 364.578 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4175 versus 3455 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3383 versus 1857 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3334 versus 3107 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4175 versus 3455 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3383 versus 1857 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3334 versus 3107 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon RX Vega 11
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX
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 RX Vega 11 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2120 | 2745 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 527 | 382 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 14684 | 10773 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 40.991 | 18.251 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 364.578 | 665.068 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.196 | 1.9 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 54.784 | 36.241 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 262.35 | 62.895 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3455 | 4175 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1857 | 3383 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3107 | 3334 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3455 | 4175 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1857 | 3383 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3107 | 3334 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1201 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Kepler |
Nom de code | Raven | GK104 |
Date de sortie | 13 February 2018 | 1 October 2012 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 815 | 819 |
Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1240 MHz | |
Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 600 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 1,760 gflops | 1,256 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 704 | 960 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 55 GTexel / s | 48.0 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 100 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 4,940 million | 3,540 million |
Noyaux CUDA | 960 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Résolution VGA maximale | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | IGP | MXM-B (3.0) |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0 | |
Taille du laptop | large | |
Options SLI | 2-way | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 API |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
RAM maximale | 2 GB | |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 115.2 GB / s | |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 256 Bit | |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
CUDA | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
FXAA | ||
SLI | ||
TXAA |