Intel HD Graphics 4000 versus NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel HD Graphics 4000 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M 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 Intel HD Graphics 4000
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 4 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 22 nm versus 40 nm
- 2.2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 192 versus 88
- Environ 80% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 8.712 versus 4.85
- Environ 66% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.931 versus 0.561
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 14 May 2012 versus 5 January 2011 |
Processus de fabrication | 22 nm versus 40 nm |
Référence | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 192 versus 88 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.712 versus 4.85 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.931 versus 0.561 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M
- Environ 3% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 672 MHz versus 650 MHz
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 10.8 billion / sec versus 4.2 GTexel / s
- 6x plus de pipelines: 96 versus 16
- 7.7x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 258.05 gflops versus 33.6 gflops
- Environ 29% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 35 Watt versus 45 Watt
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 478 versus 347
- 4x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 2149 versus 538
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 195.796 versus 155.638
- Environ 24% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 9.109 versus 7.36
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 16.727 versus 12.009
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 960 versus 754
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2210 versus 1492
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2701 versus 2392
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 960 versus 754
- Environ 48% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2210 versus 1492
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2701 versus 2392
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 672 MHz versus 650 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 10.8 billion / sec versus 4.2 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 96 versus 16 |
Performance á point flottant | 258.05 gflops versus 33.6 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 35 Watt versus 45 Watt |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 478 versus 347 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 2149 versus 538 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 195.796 versus 155.638 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 9.109 versus 7.36 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 16.727 versus 12.009 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 960 versus 754 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2210 versus 1492 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2701 versus 2392 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 960 versus 754 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2210 versus 1492 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2701 versus 2392 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M
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 | Intel HD Graphics 4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 347 | 478 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 192 | 88 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 538 | 2149 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.712 | 4.85 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 155.638 | 195.796 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.931 | 0.561 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 7.36 | 9.109 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 12.009 | 16.727 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 754 | 960 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1492 | 2210 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2392 | 2701 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 754 | 960 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1492 | 2210 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2392 | 2701 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
Intel HD Graphics 4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Generation 7.0 | Fermi |
Nom de code | Ivy Bridge GT2 | GF108 |
Date de sortie | 14 May 2012 | 5 January 2011 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1506 | 1507 |
Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | |
Vitesse du noyau | 650 MHz | 672 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 33.6 gflops | 258.05 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 22 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 16 | 96 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 4.2 GTexel / s | 10.8 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 35 Watt |
Compte de transistor | 1,200 million | 585 million |
Noyaux CUDA | 96 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
Taille du laptop | large | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 11.1 (11_0) | 12 API |
OpenGL | 4.0 | 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 |
||
Quick Sync | ||
3D Blu-Ray | ||
3D Gaming | ||
3D Vision | ||
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
CUDA | ||
DirectCompute | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
Optimus |