Intel HD Graphics 4000 versus NVIDIA Quadro 600
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel HD Graphics 4000 and NVIDIA Quadro 600 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 5 mois plus tard
- Environ 2% plus haut vitesse du noyau: 650 MHz versus 640 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 22 nm versus 40 nm
- Environ 55% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 8.712 versus 5.617
- Environ 77% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.931 versus 0.526
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1492 versus 1255
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2392 versus 2037
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1492 versus 1255
- Environ 17% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2392 versus 2037
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 14 May 2012 versus 13 December 2010 |
| Vitesse du noyau | 650 MHz versus 640 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 22 nm versus 40 nm |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.712 versus 5.617 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.931 versus 0.526 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1492 versus 1255 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2392 versus 2037 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1492 versus 1255 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2392 versus 2037 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA Quadro 600
- times}x plus de taux de remplissage de la texture: 10.24 GTexel / s versus 4.2 GTexel / s
- 6x plus de pipelines: 96 versus 16
- 7.3x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 245.76 gflops versus 33.6 gflops
- Environ 13% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 40 Watt versus 45 Watt
- Environ 52% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 526 versus 347
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 232 versus 194
- 3.9x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 2100 versus 538
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 185.752 versus 155.638
- Environ 23% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 9.023 versus 7.36
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 16.137 versus 12.009
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 899 versus 754
- Environ 19% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 899 versus 754
| Caractéristiques | |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 10.24 GTexel / s versus 4.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 96 versus 16 |
| Performance á point flottant | 245.76 gflops versus 33.6 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 40 Watt versus 45 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 526 versus 347 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 232 versus 194 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2100 versus 538 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 185.752 versus 155.638 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 9.023 versus 7.36 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 16.137 versus 12.009 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 899 versus 754 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 899 versus 754 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 600
| 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 Quadro 600 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 347 | 526 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 | 232 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 538 | 2100 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.712 | 5.617 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 155.638 | 185.752 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.931 | 0.526 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 7.36 | 9.023 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 12.009 | 16.137 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 754 | 899 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1492 | 1255 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2392 | 2037 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 754 | 899 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1492 | 1255 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2392 | 2037 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel HD Graphics 4000 | NVIDIA Quadro 600 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 7.0 | Fermi |
| Nom de code | Ivy Bridge GT2 | GF108 |
| Date de sortie | 14 May 2012 | 13 December 2010 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1501 | 1471 |
| Genre | Laptop | Workstation |
| Prix de sortie (MSRP) | $179 | |
| Prix maintenant | $299 | |
| Valeur pour le prix (0-100) | 2.80 | |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1050 MHz | |
| Vitesse du noyau | 650 MHz | 640 MHz |
| Performance á point flottant | 33.6 gflops | 245.76 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 22 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 16 | 96 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 4.2 GTexel / s | 10.24 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 1,200 million | 585 million |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
| Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Longeur | 168 mm | |
| Connecteurs d’énergie supplementaires | None | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 11.1 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.0 | 4.6 |
Mémoire |
||
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | |
| RAM maximale | 1 GB | |
| Bande passante de la mémoire | 25.6 GB / s | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1600 MHz | |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer Intel HD Graphics 4000 avec des autres
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 550M
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 540M
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 620M
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7480D
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition
