AMD Radeon Vega 11 versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Vega 11 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M 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 3 ans 11 mois plus tard
- Environ 42% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1300 MHz versus 915 MHz
- Environ 32% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 57.2 GTexel / s versus 43.4 GTexel / s
- Environ 10% de pipelines plus haut: 704 versus 640
- Environ 32% de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,830 gflops versus 1,389 gflops
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 2.1x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 35 Watt versus 75 Watt
- 2.2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 487 versus 226
- Environ 28% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 13221 versus 10351
- Environ 82% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 41.582 versus 22.828
- Environ 77% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 371.843 versus 210.585
- Environ 83% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 52.449 versus 28.662
- Environ 53% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 248.838 versus 162.83
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 13 February 2018 versus 10 March 2014 |
Vitesse augmenté | 1300 MHz versus 915 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 57.2 GTexel / s versus 43.4 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 704 versus 640 |
Performance á point flottant | 1,830 gflops versus 1,389 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt versus 75 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 487 versus 226 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 13221 versus 10351 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 41.582 versus 22.828 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 371.843 versus 210.585 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 52.449 versus 28.662 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 248.838 versus 162.83 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3343 versus 3340 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3343 versus 3340 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M
- 2.7x plus de vitesse du noyau: 797 MHz versus 300 MHz
- Environ 66% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 3051 versus 1843
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.416 versus 3.156
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 4938 versus 2156
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3684 versus 2475
- 2.3x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 4938 versus 2156
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3684 versus 2475
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 797 MHz versus 300 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 3051 versus 1843 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.416 versus 3.156 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 4938 versus 2156 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3684 versus 2475 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 4938 versus 2156 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3684 versus 2475 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Vega 11
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M
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 860M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1843 | 3051 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 487 | 226 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 13221 | 10351 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 41.582 | 22.828 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 371.843 | 210.585 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.156 | 3.416 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 52.449 | 28.662 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 248.838 | 162.83 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2156 | 4938 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2475 | 3684 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3343 | 3340 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2156 | 4938 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2475 | 3684 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3343 | 3340 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 1151 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon Vega 11 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Kepler |
Nom de code | Owl | GK104 |
Date de sortie | 13 February 2018 | 10 March 2014 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 903 | 904 |
Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1300 MHz | 915 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 797 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 1,830 gflops | 1,389 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 704 | 640 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 57.2 GTexel / s | 43.4 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt | 75 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 4,940 million | 3,540 million |
Noyaux CUDA | 1152 or 640 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Audio HD reseau 7.1 sur HDMI | ||
Soutien de DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) | Up to 3840x2160 | |
Soutien du signal sDP 1.2 | Up to 3840x2160 | |
Protection du contenu HDCP | ||
HDMI | ||
Support du signale LVDS | Up to 1920x1200 | |
Bitstreaming d’audio TrueHD et DTS-HD | ||
Soutien de l’écran analog VGA | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Mémoire |
||
Genre de mémoire | System Shared | GDDR5 |
RAM maximale | 2 GB | |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 80.0 GB / s | |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Configuration standard de la mémoire | GDDR5 | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | |
OpenCL | 1.1 | |
OpenGL | 4.5 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
Ansel | ||
BatteryBoost | ||
CUDA | ||
Direct Compute | ||
FXAA | ||
GeForce Experience | ||
GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
GPU Boost | ||
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
Optimus | ||
SLI | ||
TXAA |