AMD Radeon Vega 11 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook)
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Vega 11 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Mémoire, Soutien API, 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 Vega 11
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 0 mois plus tard
- Environ 10% de pipelines plus haut: 704 versus 640
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 16 nm
- 2.1x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 35 Watt versus 75 Watt
- Environ 66% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 485 versus 292
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 52.449 versus 30.523
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 248.838 versus 223.683
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 13 February 2018 versus 1 February 2017 |
Pipelines | 704 versus 640 |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 16 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt versus 75 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 485 versus 292 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 52.449 versus 30.523 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 248.838 versus 223.683 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook)
- 4.5x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1354 MHz versus 300 MHz
- Environ 15% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1493 MHz versus 1300 MHz
- Environ 4% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 59.72 GTexel / s versus 57.2 GTexel / s
- Environ 4% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,911 gflops versus 1,830 gflops
- 2.4x meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 4462 versus 1838
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 17485 versus 13288
- Environ 62% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.209 versus 41.582
- 2.1x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 799.414 versus 371.843
- Environ 44% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.536 versus 3.156
- 3.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7239 versus 2156
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3721 versus 2475
- 3.4x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7239 versus 2156
- Environ 50% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3721 versus 2475
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 1354 MHz versus 300 MHz |
Vitesse augmenté | 1493 MHz versus 1300 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 59.72 GTexel / s versus 57.2 GTexel / s |
Performance á point flottant | 1,911 gflops versus 1,830 gflops |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 4462 versus 1838 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 17485 versus 13288 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 67.209 versus 41.582 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 799.414 versus 371.843 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.536 versus 3.156 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7239 versus 2156 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3721 versus 2475 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 versus 3343 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7239 versus 2156 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3721 versus 2475 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 versus 3343 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Vega 11
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook)
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 Vega 11 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1838 | 4462 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 485 | 292 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 13288 | 17485 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 41.582 | 67.209 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 371.843 | 799.414 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.156 | 4.536 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 52.449 | 30.523 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 248.838 | 223.683 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2156 | 7239 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2475 | 3721 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3343 | 3359 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2156 | 7239 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2475 | 3721 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3343 | 3359 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 2089 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon Vega 11 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Pascal |
Nom de code | Owl | GP106B |
Date de sortie | 13 February 2018 | 1 February 2017 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 903 | 644 |
Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1300 MHz | 1493 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 1354 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 1,830 gflops | 1,911 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 16 nm |
Pipelines | 704 | 640 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 57.2 GTexel / s | 59.72 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt | 75 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 4,940 million | 4,400 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Soutien de G-SYNC | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Taille du laptop | large | |
Mémoire |
||
Genre de mémoire | System Shared | GDDR5 |
RAM maximale | 4 GB | |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 112.1 GB / s | |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | |
Vitesse de mémoire | 7008 MHz | |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | |
OpenGL | 4.6 | |
Vulkan | ||
Technologies |
||
Multi Monitor | ||
Multi-Projection |