Intel HD Graphics 4400 versus NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel HD Graphics 4400 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M 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 4400
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 10 mois plus tard
- Environ 53% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1150 MHz versus 753 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 22 nm versus 40 nm
- Environ 75% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 20 Watt versus 35 Watt
- 2.5x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 277 versus 111
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 7.844 versus 7.699
- Environ 32% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.958 versus 0.727
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3044 versus 2827
- Environ 8% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3044 versus 2827
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 3 September 2013 versus 27 October 2011 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz versus 753 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 22 nm versus 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt versus 35 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 277 versus 111 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.844 versus 7.699 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.958 versus 0.727 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3044 versus 2827 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3044 versus 2827 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M
- 7.2x plus de pipelines: 144 versus 20
- 8.5x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 388.8 gflops versus 46 gflops
- Environ 25% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 654 versus 522
- Environ 34% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 2860 versus 2141
- Environ 63% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 252.895 versus 154.696
- Environ 38% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 12.581 versus 9.084
- 2.6x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 21.909 versus 8.335
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1134 versus 817
- Environ 64% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2265 versus 1381
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1134 versus 817
- Environ 64% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2265 versus 1381
| Caractéristiques | |
| Pipelines | 144 versus 20 |
| Performance á point flottant | 388.8 gflops versus 46 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 654 versus 522 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2860 versus 2141 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 252.895 versus 154.696 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 12.581 versus 9.084 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 21.909 versus 8.335 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1134 versus 817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2265 versus 1381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1134 versus 817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2265 versus 1381 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 4400
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M
| 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 4400 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 522 | 654 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 277 | 111 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2141 | 2860 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.844 | 7.699 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 154.696 | 252.895 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.958 | 0.727 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 9.084 | 12.581 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 8.335 | 21.909 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 817 | 1134 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1381 | 2265 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3044 | 2827 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 817 | 1134 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1381 | 2265 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3044 | 2827 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 152 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel HD Graphics 4400 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 7.5 | Fermi |
| Nom de code | Haswell GT2 | GF106 |
| Date de sortie | 3 September 2013 | 27 October 2011 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1415 | 1417 |
| Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz | 753 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 350 MHz | |
| Performance á point flottant | 46 gflops | 388.8 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 22 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 20 | 144 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 4.6 GTexel / s | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 392 million | 1,170 million |
| Noyaux CUDA | Up to 144 | |
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 |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0 | |
| Taille du laptop | large | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12 API |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Mémoire |
||
| Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | |
| Mémoire partagé | 1 | 0 |
| RAM maximale | 2 GB | |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3\DDR5 | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Gaming | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer Intel HD Graphics 4400 avec des autres
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6520G
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 555M
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7560D
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
AMDRadeon R5 240 OEM
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
AMDRadeon R7 M265
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
AMDRadeon R6 Graphics
