Intel HD Graphics 3000 versus NVIDIA GeForce GT 525M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel HD Graphics 3000 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 525M 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, GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 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 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps).
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le Intel HD Graphics 3000
- Environ 42% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 850 MHz versus 600 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 32 nm versus 40 nm
| Vitesse du noyau | 850 MHz versus 600 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 32 nm versus 40 nm |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 525M
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 9.6 billion / sec versus 1.7 GTexel / s
- 8x plus de pipelines: 96 versus 12
- 11.3x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 230.4 gflops versus 20.4 gflops
- Environ 75% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 456 versus 261
- 2.7x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 94 versus 35
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1338 versus 1137
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1338 versus 1137
- 26x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2623 versus 101
- 26x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2623 versus 101
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 9.6 billion / sec versus 1.7 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 96 versus 12 |
| Performance á point flottant | 230.4 gflops versus 20.4 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 456 versus 261 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 94 versus 35 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1338 versus 1137 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1338 versus 1137 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2623 versus 101 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2623 versus 101 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 3000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 525M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Nom | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 525M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 261 | 456 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 35 | 94 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1137 | 1338 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1137 | 1338 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 101 | 2623 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 101 | 2623 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1837 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 5.099 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 131.334 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.355 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 6.733 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 8.015 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 911 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 911 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel HD Graphics 3000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 525M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 6.0 | Fermi |
| Nom de code | Sandy Bridge GT2 | GF108 |
| Date de sortie | 1 February 2011 | 5 January 2011 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1604 | 1546 |
| Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1100 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 850 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 20.4 gflops | 230.4 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 32 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 12 | 96 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 1.7 GTexel / s | 9.6 billion / sec |
| Compte de transistor | 995 million | 585 million |
| Noyaux CUDA | 96 | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 23 Watt | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 10.1 | 12 API |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | 0 |
| RAM maximale | 1 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 900 MHz | |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer Intel HD Graphics 3000 avec des autres
IntelHD Graphics 3000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 6100 + nForce 405
IntelHD Graphics 3000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9400M G
IntelHD Graphics 3000 vs
ATIRadeon HD 5450
IntelHD Graphics 3000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6310
IntelHD Graphics 3000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 520
IntelHD Graphics 3000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640 OEM Rebrand
