AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL versus AMD Radeon Pro 560
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL and AMD Radeon Pro 560 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 M GL
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 9 mois plus tard
- Environ 3% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 931 MHz versus 907 MHz
- Environ 39% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 80.88 GTexel / s versus 58.05 GTexel / s
- Environ 25% de pipelines plus haut: 1280 versus 1024
- Environ 39% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 2,588 gflops versus 1,858 gflops
- Environ 15% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 65 Watt versus 75 Watt
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3632 versus 3475
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 19593 versus 15828
- Environ 42% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 58.971 versus 41.388
- 2x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1235.247 versus 614.695
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.134 versus 3.837
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 75.289 versus 31.274
- Environ 33% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 252.311 versus 189.085
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6318 versus 4695
- Environ 35% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6318 versus 4695
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 1 February 2018 versus 18 April 2017 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 931 MHz versus 907 MHz |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 80.88 GTexel / s versus 58.05 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1280 versus 1024 |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,588 gflops versus 1,858 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt versus 75 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3632 versus 3475 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 19593 versus 15828 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 58.971 versus 41.388 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1235.247 versus 614.695 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.134 versus 3.837 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 75.289 versus 31.274 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 252.311 versus 189.085 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6318 versus 4695 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6318 versus 4695 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon Pro 560
- 3.6x plus de vitesse de mémoire: 5080 MHz versus 1400 MHz
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 724 versus 481
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2280 versus 2070
- 2.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3349 versus 1514
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2280 versus 2070
- 2.2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3349 versus 1514
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 5080 MHz versus 1400 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 724 versus 481 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2280 versus 2070 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3349 versus 1514 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2280 versus 2070 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3349 versus 1514 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL
GPU 2: AMD Radeon Pro 560
| 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 M GL | AMD Radeon Pro 560 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3632 | 3475 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 481 | 724 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 19593 | 15828 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 58.971 | 41.388 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1235.247 | 614.695 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.134 | 3.837 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 75.289 | 31.274 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 252.311 | 189.085 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6318 | 4695 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2070 | 2280 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1514 | 3349 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6318 | 4695 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2070 | 2280 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1514 | 3349 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2091 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL | AMD Radeon Pro 560 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 4.0 |
| Nom de code | Polaris 22 | Polaris 21 |
| Date de sortie | 1 February 2018 | 18 April 2017 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 622 | 624 |
| Genre | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1011 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 931 MHz | 907 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 2,588 gflops | 1,858 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 1024 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 80.88 GTexel / s | 58.05 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 3,000 million | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12.0 (12_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 204.8 GB / s | 81.28 GB / s |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 1024 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1400 MHz | 5080 MHz |
| Genre de mémoire | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Mémoire partagé | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| DisplayPort 1.3 HBR / 1.4 HDR Ready | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HDMI 2.0 | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL avec des autres
AMDRadeon RX Vega M GL vs
ATIRadeon X800 XT
AMDRadeon RX Vega M GL vs
ATIRadeon X800 XL
AMDRadeon RX Vega M GL vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 775M Mac Edition
AMDRadeon RX Vega M GL vs
AMDRadeon Pro 560
AMDRadeon RX Vega M GL vs
AMDRadeon RX 540 OEM
AMDRadeon RX Vega M GL vs
IntelIris Xe Graphics G4
