AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient versus NVIDIA Quadro K620
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient and NVIDIA Quadro K620 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, 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, Geekbench - OpenCL.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 3 ans 9 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- Environ 17% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 35 Watt versus 41 Watt
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 26.039 versus 22.112
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.666 versus 1.427
- Environ 80% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 27.603 versus 15.363
- Environ 37% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 135.437 versus 99.125
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3170 versus 2490
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3352 versus 3329
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3170 versus 2490
- Environ 1% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3352 versus 3329
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 862 versus 702
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 23 April 2018 versus 22 July 2014 |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt versus 41 Watt |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 26.039 versus 22.112 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.666 versus 1.427 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 27.603 versus 15.363 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 135.437 versus 99.125 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3170 versus 2490 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 versus 3329 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3170 versus 2490 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 versus 3329 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 862 versus 702 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro K620
- 3.5x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1058 MHz versus 300 MHz
- Environ 2% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1124 MHz versus 1100 MHz
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 2231 versus 1894
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 474 versus 355
- Environ 68% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 297.631 versus 176.928
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2970 versus 2408
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2970 versus 2408
| Caractéristiques | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 1058 MHz versus 300 MHz |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1124 MHz versus 1100 MHz |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2231 versus 1894 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 474 versus 355 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 297.631 versus 176.928 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2970 versus 2408 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2970 versus 2408 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K620
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| 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 |
|
|
| Nom | AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient | NVIDIA Quadro K620 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1894 | 2231 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 355 | 474 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 26.039 | 22.112 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 176.928 | 297.631 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.666 | 1.427 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 27.603 | 15.363 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 135.437 | 99.125 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2408 | 2970 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3170 | 2490 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3352 | 3329 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2408 | 2970 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3170 | 2490 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3352 | 3329 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 862 | 702 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6869 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient | NVIDIA Quadro K620 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Maxwell |
| Nom de code | Raven | GM107 |
| Date de sortie | 23 April 2018 | 22 July 2014 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 972 | 975 |
| Genre | Desktop | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $189.89 | |
| Prix maintenant | $189.93 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 15.23 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1100 MHz | 1124 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 1058 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt | 41 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 4,940 million | 1,870 million |
| Performance á point flottant | 863.2 gflops | |
| Pipelines | 384 | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 17.98 GTexel / s | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, DVI-I DP |
| Nombre d’écrans á la fois | 4 | |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | None |
| Longeur | 160 mm | |
| Largeur | 1" (2.5 cm) | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Mémoire |
||
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | |
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 128 Bit | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | |
| Genre de mémoire | 128 Bit | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Desktop Management | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient avec des autres
AMDRadeon Vega 8 Efficient vs
ATIFireGL T2-128
AMDRadeon Vega 8 Efficient vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 1100
AMDRadeon Vega 8 Efficient vs
ATIRadeon HD 5730
AMDRadeon Vega 8 Efficient vs
NVIDIAQuadro K620
AMDRadeon Vega 8 Efficient vs
AMDFirePro W4100
AMDRadeon Vega 8 Efficient vs
NVIDIAGeForce 945M
