Intel HD Graphics 4400 versus NVIDIA GeForce GT 620M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel HD Graphics 4400 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 620M 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 0 mois plus tard
- Environ 61% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1150 MHz versus 715 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 22 nm versus 40 nm
- Environ 21% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 524 versus 432
- 2.2x meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 275 versus 126
- Environ 85% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 7.844 versus 4.233
- Environ 85% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.958 versus 0.519
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 9.084 versus 7.151
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3044 versus 2392
- Environ 27% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3044 versus 2392
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 3 September 2013 versus 23 August 2012 |
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz versus 715 MHz |
| Processus de fabrication | 22 nm versus 40 nm |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 524 versus 432 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 275 versus 126 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2143 versus 2141 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.844 versus 4.233 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.958 versus 0.519 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 9.084 versus 7.151 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3044 versus 2392 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3044 versus 2392 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 620M
- 4.8x plus de pipelines: 96 versus 20
- 5.5x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 253.4 gflops versus 46 gflops
- Environ 33% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 15 Watt versus 20 Watt
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 161.144 versus 154.696
- Environ 99% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 16.605 versus 8.335
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1032 versus 817
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1595 versus 1381
- Environ 26% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1032 versus 817
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1595 versus 1381
| Caractéristiques | |
| Pipelines | 96 versus 20 |
| Performance á point flottant | 253.4 gflops versus 46 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt versus 20 Watt |
| Référence | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 161.144 versus 154.696 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 16.605 versus 8.335 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1032 versus 817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1595 versus 1381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1032 versus 817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1595 versus 1381 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 4400
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 620M
| 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 620M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 524 | 432 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 275 | 126 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2143 | 2141 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.844 | 4.233 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 154.696 | 161.144 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.958 | 0.519 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 9.084 | 7.151 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 8.335 | 16.605 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 817 | 1032 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1381 | 1595 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3044 | 2392 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 817 | 1032 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1381 | 1595 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3044 | 2392 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 152 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel HD Graphics 4400 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 620M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 7.5 | Fermi |
| Nom de code | Haswell GT2 | GF108 |
| Date de sortie | 3 September 2013 | 23 August 2012 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1421 | 1500 |
| Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz | 715 MHz |
| Vitesse du noyau | 350 MHz | |
| Performance á point flottant | 46 gflops | 253.4 gflops |
| Processus de fabrication | 22 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 20 | 96 |
| Taux de remplissage de la texture | 4.6 GTexel / s | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Compte de transistor | 392 million | 585 million |
| Noyaux CUDA | 96 | |
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 | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0 | |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
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 | 1 GB | |
| Vitesse de mémoire | 1800 MHz | |
| Genre de mémoire | DDR3 | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||
| Verde Drivers | ||
Navigation
Choisir un GPU
Comparer les cartes vidéo
Comparer Intel HD Graphics 4400 avec des autres
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 555M
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7560D
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
AMDRadeon HD 8350G
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
AMDFirePro S4000X
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
NVIDIAQuadro K620M
IntelHD Graphics 4400 vs
NVIDIAGRID M40
