AMD Radeon Vega 8 Embedded versus NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo AMD Radeon Vega 8 Embedded and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M 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 Vega 8 Embedded
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 5 ans 10 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 40 nm
- 5x consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 75 Watt
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 411 versus 307
- Environ 36% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 8771 versus 6448
- Environ 72% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 25.891 versus 15.053
- Environ 22% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.104 versus 1.72
- Environ 3% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 37.17 versus 35.916
- 2.5x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 132.07 versus 52.899
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 6729 versus 3346
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 6729 versus 3346
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 13 February 2018 versus 22 March 2012 |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 75 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 411 versus 307 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8771 versus 6448 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.891 versus 15.053 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.104 versus 1.72 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 37.17 versus 35.916 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 132.07 versus 52.899 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 6729 versus 3346 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 6729 versus 3346 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M
- Environ 99% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 598 MHz versus 300 MHz
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1757 versus 1582
- Environ 61% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 588.645 versus 365.4
- Environ 80% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2731 versus 1514
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3627 versus 2433
- Environ 80% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2731 versus 1514
- Environ 49% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3627 versus 2433
- 2.9x meilleur performance en 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2062 versus 705
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 598 MHz versus 300 MHz |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1757 versus 1582 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 588.645 versus 365.4 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2731 versus 1514 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3627 versus 2433 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2731 versus 1514 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3627 versus 2433 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2062 versus 705 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: AMD Radeon Vega 8 Embedded
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M
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 |
|
|
Nom | AMD Radeon Vega 8 Embedded | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1582 | 1757 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 411 | 307 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 8771 | 6448 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 25.891 | 15.053 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 365.4 | 588.645 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.104 | 1.72 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 37.17 | 35.916 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 132.07 | 52.899 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1514 | 2731 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2433 | 3627 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 6729 | 3346 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1514 | 2731 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2433 | 3627 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 6729 | 3346 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 705 | 2062 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
AMD Radeon Vega 8 Embedded | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Fermi 2.0 |
Nom de code | Owl | GF114 |
Date de sortie | 13 February 2018 | 22 March 2012 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 965 | 968 |
Genre | Desktop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1300 MHz | |
Vitesse du noyau | 300 MHz | 598 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 4,940 million | 1,950 million |
Noyaux CUDA | 336 | |
Performance á point flottant | 803.7 gflops | |
Pipelines | 336 | |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 33.5 billion / sec | |
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 | |
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 |
||
RAM maximale | 1526 MB | |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 72.0 GB / s | |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 192bit | |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1500 MHz | |
Genre de mémoire | GDDR5 | |
Mémoire partagé | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
Adaptive VSync | ||
CUDA | ||
FXAA | ||
SLI |