Intel HD Graphics 4400 versus NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel HD Graphics 4400 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M 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 5 mois plus tard
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 22 nm versus 40 nm
- Environ 65% consummation d’énergie moyen plus bas: 20 Watt versus 33 Watt
- Environ 81% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 275 versus 152
- Environ 55% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 7.844 versus 5.055
- Environ 51% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.958 versus 0.635
| Caractéristiques | |
| Date de sortie | 3 September 2013 versus 22 March 2012 |
| Processus de fabrication | 22 nm versus 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 20 Watt versus 33 Watt |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 275 versus 152 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.844 versus 5.055 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.958 versus 0.635 |
Raisons pour considerer le NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M
- 4.8x plus de pipelines: 96 versus 20
- 5.5x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 253.4 gflops versus 46 gflops
- Environ 2% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 532 versus 524
- Environ 11% meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 2387 versus 2143
- Environ 39% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 215.004 versus 154.696
- Environ 14% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 10.393 versus 9.084
- 2.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 19.903 versus 8.335
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 967 versus 817
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2766 versus 1381
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3359 versus 3044
- Environ 18% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 967 versus 817
- 2x meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2766 versus 1381
- Environ 10% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3359 versus 3044
| Caractéristiques | |
| Pipelines | 96 versus 20 |
| Performance á point flottant | 253.4 gflops versus 46 gflops |
| Référence | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 532 versus 524 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2387 versus 2143 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 215.004 versus 154.696 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 10.393 versus 9.084 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 19.903 versus 8.335 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 967 versus 817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2766 versus 1381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 versus 3044 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 967 versus 817 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2766 versus 1381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 versus 3044 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 4400
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M
| 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 630M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 524 | 532 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 275 | 152 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2143 | 2387 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.844 | 5.055 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 154.696 | 215.004 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.958 | 0.635 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 9.084 | 10.393 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 8.335 | 19.903 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 817 | 967 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1381 | 2766 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3044 | 3359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 817 | 967 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1381 | 2766 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3044 | 3359 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 152 | 0 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
| Intel HD Graphics 4400 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
| Architecture | Generation 7.5 | Fermi |
| Nom de code | Haswell GT2 | GF108 |
| Date de sortie | 3 September 2013 | 22 March 2012 |
| Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1421 | 1390 |
| Genre | Laptop | Laptop |
Infos techniques |
||
| Vitesse augmenté | 1150 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 | 33 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 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Soutien de bus | PCI Express 2.0 | |
| Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.5 |
| DirectX 11.2 | 12 API | |
| 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\GDDR5 | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||
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
